At 4:13 PM +0000 10/13/02, Peter van Oene wrote: >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.
Actually, I'd argue that more and more options, more and more feature creep, lead to less reliable systems. Personally, I'd rather have to jump through a few more hoops in configuration than be exposed to features that haven't gone through adequate regression testing -- involving their interactions with other features. In the Internet Research Task Force work on Future Domain Routing, one of the needs expressed for next-generation exterior routing is greater "people scalability," better options for automatic checking and even proving of configurations, etc. There's no question that it is easier to prove routing policy at the more abstract level of RPSL than at the configuration language level. To answer the specific question, an ISP historically might have wanted to inject selected BGP routes into the IGP for purposes of best exit routing. I suggest, however, that best exit routing is probably better done with MPLS TE. Protocol features become obsolete over time, although they may have seemed good ideas at the time: the OSPF Database Overflow feature, (E)IGRP link-loading taken as part of a metric, etc. Other features, which may be even more relevant here, are no longer called for in the market -- witness the exodus of desktop protocols, LANE, etc., in the CCIE exam. > > >>""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=55505&t=54961 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
