[52634] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Oct 7 15:37:54 2002
To: Pete Templin <templin@urdirect.net>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:16:43 CDT."
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1021007141416.32542B-100000@alpha.urdirect.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:37:16 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_236688545P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:16:43 CDT, Pete Templin said:
> 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.
I suppose they *could* - the fun then starts when you get a routing flap and
the other router tells you that you're not on one subnet because the subnet
is unreachable and would you please remove the interface? And I'm willing
to bet that there's a lack of MD5 at the important places in the dataflow... ;)
What's puzzling me is how anybody has a big enough net that subnets are being
added fast enough that automating the process is needed, but they don't already
have a way to centrally manage the routers so they can just push the needed
'ip route 172.16.16.0 255.255.255.0 fa0/0' out somehow.
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_236688545P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE9oeJrcC3lWbTT17ARAhW3AKDBci5aGAfuXr/BQMsRN9n89FKVXACeMily
h4Jc+Dt288bLHBCvxhum0AA=
=LHph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_236688545P--
