[44044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian)
Thu Nov 1 12:48:04 2001
Message-ID: <005301c162fc$ff8d1040$3324200a@sonicboom.org>
From: "Brian" <bri@sonicboom.org>
To: "Zhao, Xingguo" <xzhao@celoxnetworks.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:45:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I would much rather define my neighbors individually and control them that
way, and use either no sync or a hi metric null route to satisfy bgp's must
be in igp requirement.
Brian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zhao, Xingguo" <xzhao@celoxnetworks.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:33 AM
>
> Hi, all
>
> I have a question regarding to redistribute IGR routes into BGP. Currently
> both Cisco
> and Juniper support it.
>
> Here I don't understand what is the advantage of this redistribution?
> Because BGP is
> potentially injecting information into the IGP and then sending such
> information back into BGP.
>
> Could anybody provide more description regarding the advantage and the
> disadvantage
> of redistribuing IGP routes into BGP?
>
> Do people use this in real life?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Xingguo
>
