I always thought "split horizon" was a non intuitive term anyway. iBGP or
whatever. Some engineers come up with the strangest names for things.
Split horizon implys there is a big tree that is obstructing my view of the
sunset. :>0
Tony M.
(Split personnality)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Larrieu"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: RE: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
> I thought I was fairly careful in stating that with iBGP split-horizon, an
> iBGP router will not advertise a route to the same AS from which it
receives
> the route. This covers the interface issue.
>
> Chuck
> whose mama didn't raise no fool, and whose lawyer wife has taught him the
> hard way about wording things ;->
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Ole Drews Jensen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
>
>
> Chuck, I think there's a difference here. Split Horizon as you say, does
not
> advertise a route back out the interface that it received it on, but the
> iBGP does not only not propagate a route learned from other iBGP out the
> receiving interface, but it does not propagate it out any interfaces
unless
> it has been setup as a cluster server.
>
> If you would name this, it would probably be something like "iBGP horizon"
> :-)
>
> Just my 00000010 cents.
>
> Ole
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ole Drews Jensen
> Systems Network Manager
> CCNA, MCSE, MCP+I
> RWR Enterprises, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.RouterChief.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> NEED A JOB ???
> http://www.oledrews.com/job
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: A new networking term - thoughts? [7:16668]
>
>
> As a result of an off-list conversation, I came across the following
> networking term:
>
> iBGP split horizon
>
> my first reaction was a sarcastic remark about never having come across
the
> term in the RFC's. but then I got to thinking about it, and I now see this
> as a descriptive and quite useful term.
>
> recall that distance vector protocols are subject to the rule of split
> horizon. they do not advertise a route back out the interface that they
> received that particular route.
>
> one of the gotchas of iBGP is the fact that iBGP routers do not propagate
> routes learned from one iBGP neighbor to other iBGP neighbors. hence the
> requirement for iBGP full mesh.
>
> so why not call this iBGP split horizon? and define it as follows: an iBGP
> router will not advertise a route back out the same AS from which it
learned
> the route?
>
> does this make sense? worth letting this one join the lexicon of
networking
> terminology?
>
> Chuck
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=16765&t=16668
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
