So since the entire global routing tables will never fit into any IGP (and
why would you want to?), if you've got two iBGP neighbors with external
links to different ISPs, if you ever want them to use the routes learned via
iBGP, you must turn off synchronization. Am I mistaken here, or are we
mi
>Ok. I'm even more confused now. So you guys are saying that IBGP
>peers will never
>progragated its route to other IBGP peers by "no synchronization" -
>if no IGP is
>running, except by Route Reflectors?? So what's "no
>synchronization" used for?
I don't understand what you are asking. Rou
Ok. I'm even more confused now. So you guys are saying that IBGP peers will never
progragated its route to other IBGP peers by "no synchronization" - if no IGP is
running, except by Route Reflectors?? So what's "no synchronization" used for?
I have one more question: Is it true that routes in
Ok. I'm even more confused now. So you guys are saying that IBGP peers will never
progragated its route to other IBGP peers by "no synchronization" - if no IGP is
running, except by Route Reflectors?? So what's "no synchronization" used for?
I have one more question: Is it true that routes in
>No worries John. It was I who mentioned the devious nature of
>classless and synch as well :)
Always remember that the best ISPs have no class.
>
>Keep in mind that synch was designed for transit networks that have
>transit providing routers which do not run BGP. Back when the
>internet wa
No worries John. It was I who mentioned the devious nature of classless and synch as
well :)
Keep in mind that synch was designed for transit networks that have transit providing
routers which do not run BGP. Back when the internet was smaller I expect some
designs had the IGP in an AS carry
Ah, after checking up on this I see where I was confused.
Synchronization does not specifically refer to the behavior we were
talking about. I thought that synchronization meant that the next-hop
had to be in the routing table before a prefix could be moved from the
BGP table to the routing tabl
Synch is an issue that gets way too much attention in my opinion. It's not used at
all. It's a legacy feature that is meaningless in todays' networks.
What John describes below, the fact that IBGP routers will no post routes unless they
have reachability to the Next_Hop is not a synchroniza
When an eBGP neighbor forwards routing information to another eBGP neighbor,
it changes the next hop to itself. When an iBGP neighbors exchange
information they do not, by default, change the next hop. This is where the
synchronization rule comes in.
An iBGP neighbor will not be able to use a r
I'm really confused about the how Next-hop attribute works for IBGP and
EBGP. Can somebody please shed some light on this. Any tips or help
would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Hunt
_
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cis
10 matches
Mail list logo
