Is Multihop BGP supported between PE to CE? If the answer yes, then how do you guys use this with Cisco.
Regards, Masood Ahmad Shah -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 4:55 PM To: Tim Franklin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Redundant default route, without round-robin routing Tim Franklin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Friday, September 28, 2007 1:23 PM: > On Fri, September 28, 2007 12:17 pm, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote: > >>> In that case, I'd be inclined to iBGP-mesh all the boxes, inject >>> just a default into BGP from the two border routers, and let all the >>> other routers pick their 'best' route of the two. All other things >>> being equal, this should be the border router that can be reached >>> with the lowest IGP cost, or if they're all on a shared medium (I >>> think this was the case from your original post), first route >>> received. >> >> Even if you reach both next-hops via the same outgoing interface, IOS >> will load-share between both of them. CEF will see two adjacencies, >> no matter if they share the same interface. > > You're confusing me now, Oli - BGP is still *not* multipath by > default, right? So one route makes it to the routing table, one next-hop, one > adjacency? Oh, ok. I was assuming that multipath was enabled, so we'd have both routes showing up the routing table. If it is not enabled, lowest router-id will win in this case (router-id comparison will only be skipped if both paths were external). oli _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
