On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suppose that depends on how many static routes you would need, and how many routers you would have to touch.
If you have 10 sites like this, and add or remove several blocks every day (an extreme, of course), then you could end up manipulating many statics on numerous routers, which, aside from being a waste of engineer time, can lead to fat-finger mistakes.
this is a hack whichever way you look at it.. just that its better than a default and acheives a result more like the contigous AS would have had than an end user network.. hmm i wonder if this would work if you ibgp peer your discontigous border routers and use a route-map to make sure the routes point at your upsteam - would remove the statics and your manual engineering issues. argh what am i saying.. now i'm promoting this setup!
Since when did default routing become bad form, on a transit-buying network?
if you are a proper ISP with a full routing table you dont need a default and having one merely sends junk to your upstream, i guess thats chargeable so maybe they think its a good thing but it doesnt really fit with the various nanog threads on tidying up bogon packets as they hop around the net. Steve
- Daniel Golding
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Of course, it required you to point default routes out your upstreams, as you will not see the prefixes from one discontiguous island, in another, thanks to BGP loop detection.
ouch. bad practice defaulting like that, however to static route your individual blocks wouldnt be a problem