nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)
From: Hakan Hansson <hakan () insert net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 11:26:10 +0200
At 11:04 1998-10-14 , Chrisy Luke wrote:
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.
Either you have to configure next-hop-self or use static or use other IGP, otherwise you'll end up with flapping routes in your network. BGP cannot use a route for next-hop-self address derived by itself, as far as I know. /Hakan
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)