From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 09:25:28 GMT-3
At 07:57 PM 8/6/2004, nikolai wrote:
>Any thoughts regarding choosing one versus the other in order to collapse
>several ASs into a single one?
>
>The single AS consists of about 100 BGP speakers, no possibility for full
>mesh, of course. IGP is OSPF, and the AS is used as a Transitive area.
full mesh is certainly viable at 100 nodes assuming you have decent routers.
>I personally do not like multi-tier RRs and lots of Clusters. In addition, I
>have the feeling that implementing routing policy would be easier with
>Confederations, where we can see clearly the sub-AS PATH of the routes.
>Having multiple geographical areas looks to me as a good argument in favor
>of Confederations, since they all would require some local authority, and
>common IGP with the backbone routers is not desired. And the BGP design
>looks much prettier...
this isn't an either or solution. you can easily use confeds with RR hierarchies within. I would use confeds if they make sense from an admin perspective, and add a layer of RR's if you need them, inline with traffic flow (ie along the forwarding path) to ease scale.
>Your input would be appreciated,
>
>Nikolai Tsankov
>niko@4ovek.com
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:41 GMT-3