[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Quagga for production?

Subject: Quagga for production?
From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 20:22:31 +0000
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <B646241725B36940945DFA68339668E9ECCD9DFC@exchange.exchange.interhost.co.il> <[email protected]> <CFEC2ABD93715E4B96AAD927F5AAB44C0150714CBC@DSXMBX2HE.ds.ad.adp.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

Mark Tinka wrote on 18/03/2020 17:02:
> I prefer to have a number of core systems accessible in the IGP, because
> BGP can sometimes get hosed for one reason or another.
> 
> BGP always needs IGP to work. The reverse is not true, and reduces us to
> absolute basics when it hits the fan (which it has, a few times before).

Yeah.  I was thinking more for the case of customer-facing anycast 
resolvers, in which case BGP down means that the network is down, and if 
the network is down it doesn't matter than DNS is also down because 
their shared fate means that when BGP is back up, DNS will start working 
again.

Nick

Follow-Ups:
- Quagga for production?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Quagga for production?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)

References:
- Quagga for production?
  - From: David.Hiers at cdk.com (Hiers, David)
- Quagga for production?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Quagga for production?
  - From: nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard)
- Quagga for production?
  - From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)

Prev by Date: SD-WAN Operators Group
Next by Date: Fwd: Internet operations during pandemics
Previous by thread: Quagga for production?
Next by thread: Quagga for production?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread