I would clarify that the rule here is that you each BGP speaking router needs to have
a route to the Next Hop routers advertised into the AS.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 12/21/2000 at 9:43 PM Katson PN Yeung wrote:
>In case you have 2 routers connect back-to-back with iBGP, you don't need
>IGP.
>
>""Shaw, Winston Mr 5 SIG CMD"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I saw this original question yesterday but got sidetracked before I could
>> send a response.
>> I think BGP needs TCP port 179 just to operate properly. You would need at
>> least static routes(Ip routing)
>> just to get BGP routers talking to each other. So it maybe semantical, BGP
>> cannot get of the ground without some other
>> "routing" already in place. If the IGP or statics fail, so does BGP.
>> Bottom Line: BGP is fully dependent on TCP/IP, as it has no inherent way
>of
>> transporting its own packets.
>> Once the TCP packet arrives at a BGP router it can strip away the TCP and
>IP
>> headers and deal with the hellos, updates,etc.
>>
>> Thoughts anyone ?
>>
>> Winston.
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
