Re: [routing-wg] Historical routing question

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:47:16PM +0300, Jorma Mellin wrote:
> Hot-potato routing can definitely be the reason for such a low AD for eBGP.

Since hot-potato only chooses "eBGP vs iBGP", AD has no relevance here.

Unless you put your eBGP targets into your OSPF, and we all know that
this is not a very good idea :-)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [routing-wg] Historical routing question

[Jorma Mellin]

Most likely there’s also some historic reason why it was implemented this way.
BGP synchronisation is also one example where default was at early days to 
synchronise,
and nowadays not to synchronise.
Hot-potato routing can definitely be the reason for such a low AD for eBGP.

And, as we nowadays run anycast services quite often we luckily have the BGP 
backdoor option to use
to avoid the hot-potato if needed.

Jome
-
Jorma Mellin
Trustee
SIY ry / ISOC Finland Chapter
ENISA PSG member
jo...@jmellin.net
(tel. +358 50 9944762)

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 12:36, Maximilian Wilhelm  wrote:
> 
> Anno domini 2018 Hank Nussbacher scripsit:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> While giving a routing lecture today someone asked me
>> "Why was eBGP assigned an administrative distance of 20 which is better
>> than OSPF's administrative distance of 110.  What was the logic behind
>> that decision?"
>> I was unable to think of an answer.
>> Ideas?
> 
> As eBGP usually is a connection to some elses network, and OSPF only
> is internally to your network, the idea is to get packets away to
> someone else (-> the destination) as fast/early as possible and avoid
> transporting the traffic in your own network if there is an exit.
> 
> Best
> Max
> -- 
> Friends are relatives you make for yourself.
> 

Re: [routing-wg] Historical routing question

[Maximilian Wilhelm]

Anno domini 2018 Hank Nussbacher scripsit:

Hi,

> While giving a routing lecture today someone asked me
> "Why was eBGP assigned an administrative distance of 20 which is better
> than OSPF's administrative distance of 110.  What was the logic behind
> that decision?"
> I was unable to think of an answer.
> Ideas?

As eBGP usually is a connection to some elses network, and OSPF only
is internally to your network, the idea is to get packets away to
someone else (-> the destination) as fast/early as possible and avoid
transporting the traffic in your own network if there is an exit.

Best
Max
-- 
Friends are relatives you make for yourself.

Re: [routing-wg] Historical routing question

[Tassos Chatzithomaoglou]

Since AD is a vendor thing and not a standard, i guess you'll have to
ask Cisco.

My idea would be that since you are more likely to filter prefixes on
ingress eBGP rather on IGP and eBGP usually carries the majority of
prefixes, eBGP maybe was considered more "trustworthy" for the majority
of traffic.

In any case, eBGP AD can be changed (plus the network backdoor option)
and some recommendations propose so.

PS: If i remember correctly, Juniper does it the "right" way.

--
Tassos

Hank Nussbacher wrote on 10/4/2018 7:52 μμ:
> While giving a routing lecture today someone asked me
> "Why was eBGP assigned an administrative distance of 20 which is better
> than OSPF's administrative distance of 110.  What was the logic behind
> that decision?"
> I was unable to think of an answer.
> Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Hank
>
>