wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > All, > > Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time. > > IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one another, as long as > an IGP (most preferably) is running between them.
nope. direct connect is preferred, but nope - don't have to be > > On page 128 (paragraph 1) of the Routing TCP/IP Volume 2 book, it says the > following about route reflectors and clients :- > "The clients have physical connections to each of the route reflectors, and > they peer to each" preferred but not necessary. that's why there is an "neighbor ebgp-multihop" command :-> > > I assume that each client in a iBGP domain, does not need to share a > physical data-link to each RR? nope > > Many thx. (maybe im just tired from studying all weekend). > > Regards, > Ken > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > For more information about Barclays Capital, please > visit our web site at http://www.barcap.com. > > > Internet communications are not secure and therefore the Barclays > Group does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this > message. Although the Barclays Group operates anti-virus programmes, > it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is > caused by viruses being passed. Any views or opinions presented are > solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the > Barclays Group. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays > Group for operational or business reasons. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=66493&t=66488 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
