From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 16:45:59 GMT-3
IBGP does not require that routers be directly connected. Indeed, it
generally assumes the opposite. Full mesh in this context tends to be
virtual in most networks as the use of route reflection is very
common. However, non IBGP participating transit routers are not at all
common, and for the most part no possible to achieve assuming near full
prefix awareness.
At 12:10 PM 6/10/2002 -0700, Sasa Milic wrote:
>Well, that's not full mesh.
>
>Full mesh is when every iBGP router has all other iBGP routers
>as neighbors. That doesn't mean that they are directly connected.
>And if they are not directly connected, then you need synch
>because of IGP router(s) between them.
>
>
>Peter van Oene wrote:
> >
> > full mesh ibgp to me means all routers in the as run bgp and are included
> > synthetic or otherwise in the mesh.
> >
> > At 10:11 AM 6/10/2002 -0700, Sasa Milic wrote:
> > >Even if you have full mesh ibgp, you can have igp only transit
> > >routers, and need for synch.
> > >
> > >Peter van Oene wrote:
> > > >
> > > > synch does address non full mesh transit networks. it was designed to
> > > > support networks where igp only routers might exist in the transit path
> > > > between bgp speakers. it adds no value to full mesh ibgp networks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:30 GMT-3