To my knowledge, this is purely a cisco implementation issue and you'd need to look at the code or ask the coders what their particular intention was. OSPF didn't play much of a role in transit networks during the time when synchronization was a relevant option as far as I know so I doubt there was very extensive testing done on this particular feature. I would expect this was just an additional check to ensure route authenticity. Given this feature is many years antiquated, I'm surprised so many folks try and make it work.
pete At 06:23 PM 12/26/2001 -0500, John Neiberger wrote: >We discovered something on the CCIE list recently and I'm >wondering if anyone might be able to explain the reasoning >behing this behavior. > >BGP synchronization rules require that if an iBGP peer is to >advertise a route learned via iBGP, it must have that prefix >*and* the next hop for that route in the routing table already. > >An interesting added complexity to this occurs if your IGP is >OSPF. If the router in question has learned these prefixes via >OSPF, then the advertising router ID in the OSPF database must >match the router ID of the iBGP peer that advertised the route. > >Has this behavior caused any problems for any of you? Do you >know why the synchronization rules have a special case for OSPF >and not other routing protocols? > >I was working with someone else on a practice lab and we ran >into this issue. We were both going nuts trying to figure out >why the iBGP routes weren't synchronizing and this turned out >to be the cause. > >Any thoughts? > >Thanks, >John > >________________________________________________ >Get your own "800" number >Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more >http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=30145&t=30126 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
