On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Adam Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, the switches aren't important here, so if you plan to do ipv6 in the > future and aren't a huge ospf fan, > have a look at isis now and switch if you like it. It's definitely a lot > easier to manage and troubleshoot. Not > to mention not having to run two versions of ospf when you want to do ipv6!
OK noted, that could be important. > Second option is the sensible one. Think of it as building 2 core layer 2 > domains across witch all of the PEs > can talk to eachother. During normal operation, they balance across the two > domains, when a switch or > link dies, the traffic goes across the other. It's a relatively standard > design. The "relatively standard" was what I was looking for :-) > Well, tune your IGP so that it notices as quickly as possible and pulls down > the link. > > You want as few routes as possible in IGP (so just links and loopbacks), but > i guess you already knew that! :) It's not stressed enough in docs about setting up iBGP and MP-BGP, unfortunately, but yes I did learn that later on :-/ Thanks, -- Nathan _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
