BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics)

> This sounds a lot like the slippery slope of static routing being the most
> stable, so we should encourage its use Internet wide. I -know- Karl D.
> (and others that depend on dynamic routing for alternate provider fallback)
> will kick at this.

Why? What we have been arguing for has been limiting
the scope of dynamic routing only to places where
participating in global dynamic routing makes sense.

So it does not make sense for IBM or Sony to run dynamic routing
in their internal networks?!?

The border router does aggregation outbound and points the
aggregates at Null 0 with a high metric.


This is for cases in which there is no other router
participating within the customer iBGP mesh, and where there
are N (N>=1) upstream providers, and where dynamic routing
must take place within the ISP's routing domain for various
reasons (portable dialup links, links that are time-sensitive, etc.)

The assumption in this case is a common egress point.

The iBGP box should do aggregation and have static routes
pointing to Null0 for all nets it announces to the two edge

Again, a common egress point is assumed and to differeniate
policy by provider will involve netlists.

A more complex case is one like this:

  Provider X Provider Y Peers A, B, Z
     > > >
        +--------+ +--------+ +---------+
  > > > > > >
        +--------+ +--------+ +---------+
    \ | /
           (a bunch of iBGP-talking routers)

at this point people are building something akin to what
NSPs do.
Step 2 is to do the _same_ aggregation and high-metric
routing to Null 0 on all the border boxes (the three shown
above) so that a consistent picture of this small-i internet
is presented to the outsides world.

The assumption here is that there is a consistant policy
from this ISP to all its peers. This may not be true.
(I am working at a site which is an existance proof)

I'd detail several more steps but my fingers tell me they
want to go on to the next message.

No problem...