From: Peter Van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Apr 21 2001 - 16:45:51 GMT-3
You should be able to set next hop addresses on a per peer basis and thus achie
ve your goal. However, routers behind firewalls is something I haven't seen mu
ch of. What is the reasoning for such a design?
Pete
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/22/2001 at 2:41 AM Darren Hosking wrote:
>I'm trying to configure BGP with the EBGP connections over NAT (ie one BGP
>router using registered addresses, the other using private addresses with a
>static NAT translation for the EBGP peer to connect to). I receive the
>routes for the other AS no problems but believe I will have an issue with
>the next-hop of routes I advertise.
>
>What address is used for the next-hop address by default and for neighbor
>next-hop-self?
>
>If I use a route-map to set the next-hop address of outbound BGP routes,
>can
>I set it to a registered IP address known to the peer but not known to the
>IGP so the neighbor gets the correct registered address for routes
>advertised?
>
>Is BGP with NAT a reasonable thing to do? If not, how can you have multiple
>connections to ISP's behind (say) PIX firewalls?
>
> Darren
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
d
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:53 GMT-3