At 11:30 PM 10/12/2002 +0000, Zim wrote: >I like this question. It seems to ponder the worth of a command based on the >assumption that the command only exist to serve a purpose other than a real >world application. Will an ISP ever need to redistribute bgp routes into the >routing table of any IGP? Well like so much in Internetworking, it depends. >But to take away something based solely on an assumption and perhaps a >limited view from your side of the world makes no sense. In short the >flexability should stay. Used or not, options are always good to have. Just >my 4cents (adjusted for inflation)
I would agree that options are nice to have, but ones that have a tendency to catastrophically effect one's entire network with a simple misconfiguration might demand some additional protection. >""Nigel Taylor"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > All, > > This was a recent post on the Nanog list which I thought could get > > some interest on the list. Basically, the poster is questioning the > > relevance or real world requirements/need for certain commands, in this >case > > it's the "redistribute bgp" command. > > > > Here's the original post... > > > > Sean Donelan wrote: > > > > Should the Service Provider version of routing software include the > > redistribute bgp command? Other than CCIE labs, I haven't seen a > > real-world use for redistributing the BGP route table into any IGP. > > > > If the command was removed (or included a Are your sure? question) what > > would the affect be on ISPs, other than improving reliability by > > stopping network engineers from fubaring a backbone? > > > > > > Thoughts! > > > > Nigel Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55492&t=54961 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
