You may have heard that about a default, but not a normal static. There should be no issues with using static routes.
At 02:37 PM 3/9/2002 -0500, Ouellette, Tim wrote: >Thought bgp had a gotcha where you couldn't start a neighbor relationship >based on a static route. > >I'm fairly confident that I remember this. It could be for ibgp only, or >maybe just for ebgp. > >You may want to take a look > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:14 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: BGP issue ??? [7:37730] > > >Yes. BGP needs to know how to get to that neighbor and since they are not >directly connected or running a common IGP, you need a static route. > >""Stanzin Takpa"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > In the following cisco configuration , Is the static route necessary, >either > > it is ebgp or ibgp? > > > > > > > > > > ROUTER-A > > interface Loopback0 > > ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 > > ! > > interface Serial1 > > ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0 > > ! > > router bgp 400 > > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 400 > > neighbor 1.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0 > > ! > > ip route 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.2 > > > > > > ROUTER-B > > interface Loopback0 > > ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 > > ! > > interface Serial1 > > ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0 > > ! > > router bgp 400 > > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 400 > > neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0 > > ! > > ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.1 > > > > > > > > Stanzin Takpa Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37748&t=37730 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
