[safnog] Prefixes in IGP vs iBGP

Graham Beneke graham at inx.net.za
Tue May 12 04:41:16 UTC 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 08/05/2015 14:24, Mark Tinka wrote:
> A bit disappointing that IS-IS in Quagga/Zebra has been very
> poorly implemented, and that has not changed since I started
> testing this back in 2011. So we use OSPFv2/OSPFv3 for Anycast, and
> redistribute that into our IS-IS core.

This raises an interesting question for me:

Why do you choose to distribute this in your IGP rather than as a iBGP
prefix?

The basic rule is that all customer prefixes should be in iBGP. I have
typically extended that to be any hosts and services on the network
are 'customers' of the network (even if they are freeloaders).

IGP is then only used for routing infrastructure and hosts directly
related to the control plane of the network (route reflectors). On
smaller networks I've often also made exceptions for operations
systems like TACACS and monitoring.

- -- 
Graham Beneke
INX ZA
JINX | CINX | DINX
graham at inx.net.za | http://ispa.org.za/inx/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=VY2H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the safnog mailing list