Yeah. I'll take a look at that.
I'm not sure I want all IP at the core, since different areas need different BGP handoffs for myself and other providers on LIT services. I guess what I'm really debating with myself is do I continue to treat each 'area' cabinet (akin to Tower sites) separately redundant, or do I just go ahead and institute a giant redundant ring. I'll have the ring in most areas eventually anyways, but to start out it appears like a star with redundancy at the ends to other providers/links. -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Jenkins via Af Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Need some WAN topology/protocol advice Is this for fiber? Are you building fiber rings? If so, you may want to look into G.8032v2 designs. Matthew Jenkins SmarterBroadband [email protected] 530.272.4000 On 11/19/2014 02:04 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af wrote: > I know a lot of us here span networks across large areas and have multiple > providers. > > I want my IP address space to be redundant and I guess I can either make sure > I have a ring with OSPF/ static routes, or I can BGP. > > Since I sell to other providers that would like BGP and I would like to > preserve my routing by /24 classes via BGP. > Maybe I should just use BGP at each site/area? > > That would restrict me to keeping the sites at /24 class size or larger > though, since external BGP doesn't like anything smaller. > > I think that's ok, but it does lend itself to waste if I come short of using > the 254 IP's or I just break the barrier into another /24 for the site. > > But I can't think of any way around it without relying on infrastructure to > ring me back to a central BGP point or two, using OSPF inside. > > What do you guys do? >
