From: Scott Morris (smorris@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 12:54:20 GMT-3
It's supported just fine. You need to be sure that there's an internal route
to get to whatever address the loopback is. If other routers can't figure
out how to get to router x.x.x.x, then you won't exchange routes. Sometimes
(especially in a confederation), static routes, or a separate igp protocol
are used.
Scott Morris, MCSE, CNE(3.x), CCDP (R&S), CCIE (R&S) #4713, Security
Specialization, CCNA - WAN Switching
smorris@ccci.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Chesapeake Network Solutions http://www.ccci.com
Cell Phone: 941-350-8590 e-mail:smorris@ccci.com
Pager: 800-490-1326 Fax: 606-225-8403
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Stephens, Paul [Prof.Serv]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 10:10 AM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: BGP Confederations
Has anyone used loopbacks as the address in the neighbor statement, with the
update source statement, when going between sub AS's within a confederation.
It works fine between two peers within the same AS running IBGP and between
two two peers in different AS's running EBGP. I just can't get it work
between two sub AS's within the confederation ??
What I wondered is it supported ?
Paul Stephens
UK INI Network Consultant
Networks and Systems Integration Services
Compaq Computer Ltd
*mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com
<mailto:paul.andrew.stephens@compaq.com>
* Mobile +44 7818 457948
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:23:05 GMT-3