On Tuesday 03 February 2009 09:31:49 pm Steve Bertrand wrote: > For the prefixes at the client access edge that are put > in place statically, I advertise them to the other > internal peers via iBGP. Would it be best to leave it > this way, or to put this address space into the IGP > instead, and have BGP only announce the actual eBGP > learnt routes?
Best to keep your IGP carrying only your Loopbacks, and iBGP handling your customer prefixes. Doing this affords you the filtering capabilities of BGP and allows you to operationalize your routing policy better. > Also, should all of my routers have a pull-up route for > the entire /21, or just for the prefixes that they house? Normally, I'd recommend the aggregates be originated by a very stable device in the network. We do this using our route reflectors, and change the NEXT_HOP attribute of the aggregates to point to the Null/Discard interface on all peripheral routers. These edge routers would then be configured to re-announce the aggregates to remote eBGP peers (customers, transit providers, public/private peers, e.t.c.). For customer aggregation edge routers, prefixes used to assign /30 (/126 for v6, or whatever you use for this purpose) point-to-point addresses, as well as assignments for their own use on their LAN's, from your own blocks, would be included in your iBGP running on these router. Typically, we assign whole /24's or more for this purpose, and announce a shorter block within our network; keeps our iBGP table as small as possible (can't have little /30's or /126's running around in your iBGP, now can you :-)). So far, you seem to be on the right track. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
