[20466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hakan Hansson)
Wed Oct 14 05:53:04 1998
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:26:10 +0200
To: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
From: Hakan Hansson <hakan@insert.net>
Cc: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org>, nanog@merit.edu, pdonner@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <19981014100414.B7199@flix.net>
At 11:04 1998-10-14 , Chrisy Luke wrote:
>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.
Either you have to configure next-hop-self or use static or use other IGP,
otherwise you'll end up with flapping routes in your network. BGP cannot
use a route for next-hop-self address derived by itself, as far as I know.
/Hakan
