BGP router to null - is it redundant ?

From: Nodir Nazarov (nodir@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jan 20 2001 - 20:43:44 GMT-3

• Next message: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Previous message: Harbir Kohli: "Understanding IBM access-lists"
• Next in thread: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Maybe reply: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hello,

I need this for clarification. Suppose I have to originate supernet
192.168.0.0/16 to a BGP peer with static redistribution. In this case I
always need ip route 192.168.0.0. 255.255.0.0 null 0 (at least, it's
recommended). Now, if I am originating this supernet with "network"
statement and not redistributing anything to BGP, do I need "ip route ..
null 0" at all ? In what else cases will I need "ip route ... null 0" ?
>From real world experience what would you recommend to use - "network" or
"redistribute" supernets ? And what are pros and cons ?

Thank you,
Nodir

• Next message: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Previous message: Harbir Kohli: "Understanding IBM access-lists"
• Next in thread: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Maybe reply: David FAHED: "Re: BGP router to null - is it redundant ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:37 GMT-3