On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:
No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which session. Its gone about very properly.
And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs across a point-to-point link?
In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from the start.
My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its configuration, I would. I realize some commands make a router more secure than them being absent (and vice versa), while some commands make a router perform better than them being absent (and vice versa). My point - just because a feature is there, does not mean you have to use it.
And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server?
Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as centralized networking. But that's just me.
Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering?
Can't speak for others, just myself. Mark.