>
> Lets say though that you set up a BGP router to only advertise one or two
> routes to your provider, who also have to be running BGP, to advertise them
> to the Internet. I guess this would work over a smaller bandwidth since
> you are not receiving incoming routes. The upstream BGP speaker would have
> to be configured to only accept information from you and not to send it.
> Blocking it on your end would be pointless because the bandwidth would
> still get choked with incoming data.
While I have no opinion on rather Livingston should implement this or not,
as someone pointed out, this service is currently being offered for
Emergency back-up routing, by a very clueful person, so it must work...
> The only other application I can think of for using BGP over a dialup
> connection is if you decided to use BGP as an internal gateway protocol
> (IGP). This also is not a good idea. OSPF should be used internally and
> BGP should be used externally, but since BGP is a routing protocol to
> distribute routing information, technically, though bad form it can be
> done. Using BGP as and IGP is like swatting flys with a sledge hammer,
> you'll probably kill the fly, but you risk breaking things as well.
> Vice-versa using a dialup connection to run BGP is like using a fly to swat
> a sledge hammer.
I think you are talking about Livingston's implementation of BGP. Cisco
has iBGP specifically designed for use as an IGP.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288
Systems Administrator
Namesecure
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/