The biggest problem here is that Cisco needs to change their defaults to require more configuration than router bgp X neighbor 1.2.3.4 remote-as A When that's the bar for the complexity required for setting up BGP, bad things WILL happen. Period. Cisco has taken all these years and not stepped up in providing any sort of a reasonable change to the marketplace as others have done. This hurts the industry as a whole, and hurts the perception that "we can't route". As for other problems with leadership, there's no good way to manage large configurations on the platforms, nor a reasonable size of NVRAM provided either. The list goes on and on, and I've communicated this more than once to the company. Nobody cares about this basic infrasturcture at Cisco, or at least nobody that can make something happen. Instead people care about what product is intruding on their turf and how to defend it instead of building a better product and improving things. Honestly, it's a lost cause and SP's don't account for any significant amount of revenue. If someone at Cisco cares to address these things, i'm interested in helping but it's clear that the head-in-the-sand policy by upper mgmt lives on and they'd rather fight amongst themselves and risk the industry as a whole because of their antics. - Jared (speaking as someone who has built large ACLs/prefix-lists and has 6MB+ configs that can't be loaded on my routers. without vendor support those that want to do the right thing can't, so the game is lost). -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.