[afnog] afnog Digest, Vol 54, Issue 23

[Peter Nyamukusa]

Hi Mark,

Your very right my IGP is only to carry my router interface and loopback IPs
(BGP next-hop IPs) I only have a few static routes redistributed into my IGP
which are the next hop IPs I am peering with for my upstream providers
(Multi-hop). This is just for monitoring purposes

Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mtinka at globaltransit.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:45 PM
To: Peter Nyamukusa
Cc: 'Randy Bush'; 'Frank A. Kuse'; afnog at afnog.org
Subject: [?? Probable Spam] Re: [afnog] afnog Digest, Vol 54, Issue 23

On Wednesday 24 September 2008 19:10:05 Peter Nyamukusa
wrote:

> I sure
> that would be true if you have may routers in your backbone area right 
> now I have over 20 and that number should increase to over 100 within 
> the next few months.

Among the many fundamental concepts in making sure your link state IGP is
stable and continues to converge quickly as you add more and more routers to
the network is keeping the link state database as small as possible.

This means keep the number of prefixes to a minimum.

A best practice design that is being touted today is to only carry
infrastructure and Loopback addresses in the IGP. The AfNOG is behind this
design as well.

As long as you can keep the number of prefixes low (and, of course, follow
the other fundamental concepts in scaling your link state IGP's), you can
have quite a handful of routers in the network without issue.

Link state IGP's are built for fast convergence. BGP is built for routing
entry scalability and extensive routing policy management. Exploit both
their strengths in harmony.

Cheers,

Mark.