At 04:52 PM 3/31/2003 +0000, \"\"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"\" wrote: >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.
In most cases the routers are not adjacent and certainly do not need to be. Half the reason one runs an IGP in an ISP is for loopback reachability support for IBGP peering. Such a demand would put pretty expensive topological demands on a network. >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" This may relate only to the diagram in question. >I assume that each client in a iBGP domain, does not need to share a >physical data-link to each RR? Correct. >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=66573&t=66488 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
