From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@xxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Mar 12 2002 - 16:04:28 GMT-3
I agree. Thanks for everyone that answered my question. I believe my
confusion came from working with a two router pod where split horizon
wasn't an issue.
Yes, this to have to functional differences. A router reflector
overcomes the IBGP split horizon rule:
If I learn it via IBGP I will not pass it to my IBGP neighbors.
Next-hop-self:
Overcomes the next hop propogation problem. If the next hop being
advertised for a given route
is not reachable, I can't use that route, so I set the Next hop to be
the router who advertised it to me,
instead of the next hop EBGP router that my internal router might not
have knowledge of.
Michael Snyder wrote:
I've been reading up on BGP lately, and have come up with a question.
Is there a functional difference between setting a neighbor as a route
reflector client, or setting a neighbor as next hop self? Assuming 'no
sync', to my mind these commands seem to do the same thing. The same
network topology and limits seem to apply to each command.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:02 GMT-3