RE: iBGP based network. [9:2300] posted 12/10/2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> okie no multihop, i agreee........that doesnt matter to me
> right..no IGP either...
Well, it matters in the sense that without multihop, you have no resilience
> ...hmm so full mesh is a nice problem isnt it :o).......i
> wont next-hop
> self, ill next-hop adjacent neighbour..but i still need a full mesh
Yep, you need a full mesh or a really messy RR setup with every RR setting
next-hop to the outbound interface to all neighbours.
> > Why would you want to do this, what benefit does it bring?
> just.. :o) ....wondering wht "iBGP not bouncing to another
> iBGP" ever gives
> me actually....was it made with the intention of allowing
> "smaller routing
> tables"......or it has a reason...u still have a "source"
> field in BGP to
> recognise the source of the update dont u? so that "RIP equivalent" of
> "split horizon" cud be knocked off with that....
The reason a route learned via iBGP isn't announced to other iBGP neighbours
is to prevent looping. In eBGP, you have the AS path to tell you when
there's a loop (i.e. if you see your own AS number, there's a loop). Since
every router in iBGP is in your AS, you can't use the AS path as a loop
detection mechanism. Therefore, you have to prevent loops by mandating that
you can't announce routes learned via iBGP to another iBGP neighbour. The
obvious exception to this rule is if you're a route reflector. Then, you
have to introduce cluster ids and originators to solve the problem of
> > I'm not even going to bother with the question regarding duplicate
> > in the network! Suffice to say that you've got a single
> subnet appearing
> > two interfaces on router y. Which one do you choose to send the BGP
> > What have you been smoking? ;-)
> there was more than that i missed... i had the same IP
> appearing on one side
> of the x router and the same was on its other interface....
> that was the bad bit.......sorry abt that.
> i realised that immediately after i sent the mail and the "pot" wore
> off....that ..its A-x-w-y-z-B ;o)
> now can i have the same addresses on the interfaces between
> x-w and y-z
> ...yup not with all those issues u mentioned.....
Yes, you could have the same address on the two links you mention provided
you're setting next-hop self along the path and provided that w and y are
route reflectors and are setting next-hop for all routes announced to each
other to be the outbound interface towards each other. If w and y are not
RRs, then they will not announce anything to each other.
> actually here its linux-1 , linux 2, linux 3 , linux 4 linux 5 linux 6
> ...that i use... and i just relaised i dropped one linux when
> i sent that
> anything else that fails?
When trying to troubleshoot in a network like this, your sanity ;-) The
complexity introduced here, for the sake of not running an IGP, is IMHO
unsustainable in real life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended
recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm
that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you
are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using,
printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any
information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all
e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and
any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus
checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is
reserved by us.
Message Posted at:
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/juniper.html