[52624] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Mon Oct 7 14:13:09 2002
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: "alex@yuriev.com" <alex@yuriev.com>
Cc: Jason Lixfeld <jlixfeld@andromedas.com>,
'Alex Rubenstein' <alex@nac.net>, "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10210071021100.25313-100000@s1.yuriev.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Can someone please explain to me *why* are you trying to come up with
> *complicated* configurations as opposite to
>
> (a) defining your connected routes on all the routers that would be using
> it.
I've asked because I wanted to know if any routing protocol redistributes
information about diretly connected multi-access networks.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if you have a an ethernet segment with
multiple routers on it that adding a secondary IP to each one is more
complicated and error-prone than adding it to one and having a dynamic
routing protocol notify the rest of the routers on the segment.
It also seems that the answer I was looking for, at least as far as iBGP
is concerned, is no. However rather than just saying, "no, BGP can't do
this" many people have decided to brag about how smart they are because
they don't ask questions about how BGP works.
So now I can sit back and watch the chest-thumping continue...
-Ralph
