On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:06:28 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > It's cleaner to have a route type for aggregates than a > static null0 route with the same default preference of a > static route.
Why would it be cleaner? The static route is basically used to pull-up the aggregate into BGP. This points to a Null interface on all BGP- speaking routers, ensuring packets that arrive for subnets not in iBGP or the IGP get dropped, and also announcing said routes to eBGP neighbors. Works. Simple. Effective. > Another is not having eBGP routes > preferred over iBGP route. Your aggregates would be in your iBGP. Would you expect to learn your aggregates from outside your routing domain? > At the risk of starting yet > another trite cisco vs. juniper thread, what do you mean > by preferred device? What I meant is if we were comparing a Cisco and a Juniper and the Cisco turned to be more preferred save for this one feature the Juniper had. I wasn't implying Cisco are better than Juniper, or vice versa. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
