From: GS1 (klem_gs@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 13:41:38 GMT-3
I would assume full connectivity to all routes is needed. This includes egp
and igp. Unless stated otherwise.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 9:15 AM
To: Pun, Alec CL; Leigh Bichard; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Full IP connectivity
At 5:34 PM +0800 11/11/03, Pun, Alec CL wrote:
>that's the question exactly I want to ask....
>But in the lab, besides the BGP prefix learned, will I know the loopback IP
>address for EGP prefix generated by backbone routers so that I can send
ping
>?
>
>alec
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leigh Bichard [mailto:leigh@clara.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 5:27 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Full IP connectivity
>
>
>Does full IP connectivity include EGP routes as well as IGP? Having full
>reachability, except when specifically requested not to, is usually a goal
>of the lab but I have always assumed that this only related to IGPs. With
>BGP I have tended to only concentrate on the BGP routers especially when it
>affects BGP functionality.
>
>Should all routers have ip reachability to BGP routes? Should BGP routers
be
>
>able to ping BGP addresses?
>
>Thanks
A special case, admittedly, but the IGP routers used for transit
traffic in an ISP may very well not have full external connectivity.
The major purpose of the IGP is for failover of alternate internal
paths among edge routers, especially if the internal network is MPLS.
Only the edge routers really need external awareness.
I wouldn't expect this thinking on R&S, but it is real-world for
service provider. Usual disclaimers on the relevance of real-world to
Cisco exams.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 12:29:10 GMT-3