From: MADMAN (dmadlan@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 12:25:15 GMT-3
You don't lay out the scenerio from which you would redistribute BGP
into your IGP. Sure you could get away with doing that if you have a
partial BGP routing table though I don't know why you would. If your
recieving full routes and redist BGP into any IGP I assure you your
router will puke. Not taking into account ISPs, IBGP is most often used
by customers who are dual homing, recieving full routes, and want to tke
the best path to the destination network.
As I mentioned the other day, synchronization is a legacy attribute of
BGP and IMHO should be disable by default.
Dave
H C wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a more basic question. Would someone clarify the relationship
> between iBGP and IGP? BGP synchronization exists so iBGP will wait until
> IGP has propagated within the AS then advertise it outside of AS. BGP RR
> exists because iBGP needs fully meshed with peers and may not scale for very
> large networks. If I'm running IGP and redistribute with BGP, where would
> iBGP play? I guess I'm not seeing this relationship clearly. Thanks if
> anyone would shed some light.
>
> Henry
>
> From: "Michael Jia" <mjia@cisco.com>
> Reply-To: "Michael Jia" <mjia@cisco.com>
> To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: RE: IBGP redistribution
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:39:15 -0800
>
> Hi, all
>
> Thank you all for the quick reply. the command
> "bgp redistribute-internal" indeed injects ibgp routes
> into IGP.
>
> It will be very easy to create conflict routes by using
> this command and should be planned carefully before
> doint it.
>
> Thanks again.
> Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:09 GMT-3