[52628] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Mon Oct 7 14:42:29 2002
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: alex@yuriev.com
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: Jason Lixfeld <jlixfeld@andromedas.com>,
'Alex Rubenstein' <alex@nac.net>, "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0210071401140.21086-100000@ns.istop.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > (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.
Wrong. It makes you think about "Why am I doing it"
> 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.
Wrong again. They tend to RFTM first.
Alx
