Re: BGP next-hop-self

Unless that change/addition breaks another rule of the lab, then you
would not be counted off for it. That is indeed over-configuration (or
may be) but no harm, no foul!

HTH,

*Scott Morris*, CCIE/x4/ (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,

JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.

JNCI-M, JNCI-ER

evil_at_ine.com

Internetwork Expert, Inc.

http://www.InternetworkExpert.com

Toll Free: 877-224-8987

Outside US: 775-826-4344

Knowledge is power.

Power corrupts.

Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......

PS. Real life is a whole different story, so I'd suggest knowing WHY to
configure "next-hop-self"! :)

Sven Arend -X (sarend - Torque-IT Ltd at Cisco) wrote:
> HI there,
>
>
>
> I wanted to find out something related to the marking of the exam.
>
>
>
> Example:
>
>
>
> R1 and R2 are eBGP neighbors. R2 and R3 are iBGP neighbors.
>
>
>
> Without looking whether or not R3 has IGP reachability to R1 I put on a
> next-hop-self on R2 to R3.
>
>
>
> Would this be marked wrong if there was IGP reachability?
>
>
>
> Basically to make absolutely sure that one has reachability at all times
> is it ok put a next-hop-self statement on neighborships like the one
> above?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Sven
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Jul 06 2009 - 08:20:47 ART