Re: BGP in lab - using loopbacks for ibgp peering

From: Scott Stoddard (scott@gblx.net)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 21:21:21 GMT-3


I would say use loopbacks whenever you need redundancy or when going to a
neighbor over multiple load balanced interfaces, the loopback will never go
down and would be perfect for this. If you have only one connection to a bgp
neighbor over one interface I don't think there are any benefits to putting
your bgp session on the loopbacks.If the interface goes down your bgp
session will go down regardless if you were using loopbacks or not.

--Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: "Packet Man" <ccie2b@hotmail.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: BGP in lab - using loopbacks for ibgp peering

> Hi,
>
> I've heard 2 points of view on whether or not for ibgp, peering should be
> done between loopbacks or between physical interfaces when the lab doesn't
> require it either explicitly or implicitly.
>
> Pro:
> Using loopbacks is more robust & should always be used as a matter of
> course.
>
> Con:
> If it's not required, it's not worth the extra time it takes to config &
> only adds an extra layer of complexity which could potentially use up alot
> of time if it's not configured correctly from the getgo.
> Furthermore, you'll probably need every minute available for other things,
> so don't use time that don't earn you points.
>
> To me, both arguments are strong. So, I wonder which point of view to
> adopt.
>
> Thanks, PM
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans
available.
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/
direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:41 GMT-3