[52633] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pete Templin)
Mon Oct 7 15:18:54 2002
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:16:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Pete Templin <templin@urdirect.net>
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "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
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> 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.
They are dynamic routing protocols, not dynamic gateway-creation
protocols. You're asking iBGP to create an interface. iBGP (and other
dynamic routing protocols) don't do that.
Pete
--
Peter J. Templin, Jr., CCNP, CCDP
Networking Consultant
On-Line Internet Services - URDirect.net
A division of Global On-Line Computers
5606 Randolph Blvd templin@urdirect.net
San Antonio, TX 78233 (210)692-9911
