[46439] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP without an IGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jake Khuon)
Thu Mar 28 13:59:50 2002
Message-Id: <200203281859.g2SIxI1x014469@wooj.com>
From: "Jake Khuon" <khuon@NEEBU.Net>
To: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: "Abarbanel, Benjamin"'s message of Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:40:51 -0500.
<39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC558225B6@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
Reply-To: khuon@NEEBU.Net (Jake Khuon)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:58:04 -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
### On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:40:51 -0500, "Abarbanel, Benjamin"
### <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> casually decided to expound upon
### "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>, Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> the
### following thoughts about "RE: BGP without an IGP":
BA> into the AS as IBGP routes. But from what I understood Ken original topology
BA> he was only talking about reachability within the AS. Reachability between IBGP
BA> peers that are more than 1 hop away.
Unless memory and past email messages serve me wrong, I believe Ken's
topology called for full-mesh.
BTW, we ran iBGP full mesh without an IGP quite fine. Okay.. so there's a
twist... We did it for IPv6 (before Cisco had IPv6 IS-IS) but I see no
reason why it wouldn't also work for IPv4.
--
/*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+
| Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
| for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
+=========================================================================*/
