[20464] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chrisy Luke)
Wed Oct 14 05:13:50 1998
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:04:14 +0100
From: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
To: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org>, nanog@merit.edu, pdonner@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <19981014084535Z27209-20842+38@cesium.clock.org>; from Sean M. Doran on Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 01:45:31AM -0700
Sean M. Doran wrote (on Oct 14):
> The key point is that, in a router talking iBGP, the route to the
> NEXT_HOP received by an iBGP neighbour *MUST* be known through
> means other than BGP. This is not to say that the route need
> be dynamic -- a static default route would do just fine.
Not necessarily. You just get a more pronounced stepping effect when
you learn routes whose next-hops are in the same protocol.
I don't recommend it in a large network though. It gets very messy.
Chris.
--
== chris@easynet.net, chrisy@flix.net, chrisy@flirble.org
== Systems Manager for Easynet, part of Easynet Group PLC.
