Cc: nanog@nanog.org From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Modelling a large ISP network with C-BGP Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:19:50 -0500 To: Gregory Hicks <ghicks>
On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Gregory Hicks wrote:
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:38:57 -0500
On Feb 2, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
I fail to see a usage for smaller ISP that are using BGP only for peering and OSPF internaly.
Why would you need to sim this at small scale?
How about for a net that has 540+ networks? It would be interesting to see what happens if you perturb this BEFORE you do the perturbation...
*sigh*
You just made me speechless. All I can come with is "Well, DUH!"
Christian: Honestly, I didn't *mean* to make you speechless! It just happened... What I *meant* to write was ... 540+ SUBnets. We have several /16 addresses and some 35K hosts right now - but still growing... All this is hiding behind one AS... (used to be three ASes)
*sigh*
------------------------------------------------------------------- I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton