nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)
From: Chrisy Luke <chrisy () flix net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:04:14 +0100
Sean M. Doran wrote (on Oct 14):
The key point is that, in a router talking iBGP, the route to the NEXT_HOP received by an iBGP neighbour *MUST* be known through means other than BGP. This is not to say that the route need be dynamic -- a static default route would do just fine.
Not necessarily. You just get a more pronounced stepping effect when you learn routes whose next-hops are in the same protocol. I don't recommend it in a large network though. It gets very messy. Chris. -- == chris () easynet net, chrisy () flix net, chrisy () flirble org == Systems Manager for Easynet, part of Easynet Group PLC.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Sean M. Doran (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Hakan Hansson (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Neil J. McRae (Oct 15)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Hakan Hansson (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)