[ietf79-tech] default route?

[Xiaoliang Zhao]

> Is the idea that we truly want to run a primary/backup rather than best
path approach?

Yes. also i recall such primamy/backup approach has been used by previous
ietf, at least one time when backup link is a wave link.

my intention is to make things easier and simpler. TE may not be a big issue
for us in my view...

thanks,
Leon

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Jim Martin <jim at daedelus.com> wrote:

> Leon,
> Is the idea that we truly want to run a primary/backup rather than best
> path approach? Is this because one path avoids the firewall and the other
> does not? If so, we need to make sure the attendees know that if the primary
> link fails, our path is subject to filtering.
>
> - Jim
>
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:23 PM, Xiaoliang Zhao wrote:
>
> furthermore, we are attempting to use 2x /17s on primary link and /16 on
> backup link to engineer inbound traffic, it seems easier and more
> predictable (sorry to worsen the global routing scalability problem, but it
> won't last long anyway)
>
> thanks,
> Leon
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Xiaoliang Zhao <xzhao at cernet.edu.cn>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are thinking to get default route from our ISPs with the intention to
>> simplify the policy. So the basic idea is we get 0/0 from both primary and
>> backup link via bgp, we do local pref to engineer the traffic. Any thoughts
>> on potential issues?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Leon
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf79-tech mailing list
> ietf79-tech at daedelus.com
> http://www.daedelus.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf79-tech
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.daedelus.com/pipermail/ietf79-tech/attachments/20101013/f74a77fe/attachment-0001.html