From: JM HotMail (norouterrip@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 22 2006 - 21:01:51 ART
I think J Buss is referring to a partially meshed NBMA or ethernet
situation. I had a hard time with it. The only document I could find on the
topic was the next-hop attribute part in the BGP case study:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/bgp-toc.html#bgpnexthop
Jean-Marc
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Scott Morris
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:17 AM
To: 'j buss'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: BGP confederation
If your "router bgp xxxx" is different from the other guy, whether you are a
confederation or not, you are technically still an ebgp connection. So
next-hop-self would be redundant to actually type in.
Other normal rules apply (multihop, etc.).
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
smorris@ipexpert.com
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of j
buss
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:25 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: BGP confederation
Hi there,
If i have a bgp confederation. How do you peer with you confederation ebgp
peers, do you peer on loopback addresses, and leave you IGP running between
them, or do you use "next-hop-self" and peer on interface addresses just
like a normal ebgp peering.
What's the common practice?
thanks..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:48 ART