You hit the nail on the head and this is why I think synchronization is a legacy default attribute. If you redistributed the Internet routing table into an IGP I think you would not like the results. I have not tried this, has anyone????
Dave "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > I'm no BGP guru, but I would have thought also that redistributing *full > routes* (as opposed to a default) into your IGP might overload internal > routers rather badly. The original poster referred to 2600s and 3600s > inside the AS. > > JMcL > ----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2002 09:36 am ----- > > "Lomker, Michael" > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 05/04/2002 08:38 am > Please respond to "Lomker, Michael" > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: > Subject: RE: BGP question [7:40525] > > > Why is redistribution into an IGP a big no - no? My > > understanding is that this is what people usually do. > > You'd have to be careful about advertising those routes back out to BGP > again. There was a famous case of someone bringing down the Internet by > creating such a loop. Needless to say, their ISP shouldn't have been > accepting advertisements for networks that the company didn't own. -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications Inc. 612-664-3367 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40663&t=40525 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
