From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2008 - 10:30:09 ART
That all depends on what you are doing.
If you follow the spec with ebgp peering, you are using a directly connected
physical interface to peer with. In a non-confederation scenario, NH will
get overwritten anyway which is the same as what NHS does.
In a confederation scenario, when to use it or not depends on whether your
externally facing link addresses are known within the confederation (e.g. is
it a valid next hop, or are you getting failures?). Do what needs to be
done in order to achieve the reachability that you'd like to! :)
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Peter Grewal
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:07 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Question regarding Confederations and when to use next-hop-self
Guys,
Could someone please provide some clarification as to when to use
next-hop-self between AS's within a BGP confederation. I understand that
when you set up the confederation that the peering arrangement is eBGP
based, but the actual route processing takes place as similar to iBGP. On
that assumption, would I only place next-hop-self on routers that have
peering relation with EBGP peers that are outside the confederation, if I
require NLRI ?
Thank you.
Peter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 01 2008 - 06:23:20 ART