You're right - I'm looking for fault here in my own equipment, whereas a screwed-up IGP on their end could well have caused all the problems I was experiencing. Occam's Razor, of course! Your point about the iBGP confederations is well-taken, by the way. ----------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: smd@clock.org [mailto:smd@clock.org] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 11:11 AM To: rdobbins@netmore.net Subject: RE: IS-IS protocol implementation problem [not to list] | No, I'm a single-AS hosting provider, no confederation. UUNET has confederations; I was doing a public thinking exercise (trying to coopt smart people who still read the NANOG list, too) about the extent to which the insulation of iBGP in a confederated AS from the disappearance of iBGP peers for an otherwise full-mesh iBGP layout interacts with the exposure of multi-AS-one-IGP confederations to failures which cause the iBGP next-hops to disappear. If it seems a bit esoteric, don't worry, it is... | The more I think | about it, the more I'm convinced that CEF simply stopped working; all my | interfaces were active, and there were no apparent problems with my IGP, | which is OSPF. Right, UUNET was having the problems; you were just a victim of their internal routing being so broken that they couldn't make packets move to you reliably, even though their routers knew how to get to your network; likewise their routers kept telling you they knew how to get to all sorts of networks which in fact they couldn't reach. This problem appears consistent with an IGP problem inside UUNET, which is known to use/have-used confederated ASes. | I think that major BGP wigginess caused the CEF problem; thanks very much | for you insight, I definitely need to think about it some more. What makes you think it was a CEF problem? Sean.