At 04:52 PM 3/31/2003 +, \"\"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"\"
wrote:
>All,
>
>Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
>
>IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one another, as long as
>an IGP (most preferably) is running between them.
In most cases the routers are not
Wellthat is what the book says. Try it out on your own lab and you will
see that a Route-reflector client does not have to be directly connected to
the Route-reflector for it to work. Just tried it in my home lab and it
works, the client is 3 routers away.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groups
Thx to all who replied.
Make sense now :))
Beers to all!
-Original Message-
From: The Long and Winding Road [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 March 2003 05:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP Route Reflectors [7:66488]
""Mike Martins"" wrote in message
n
""Mike Martins"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, EBGP multihop is between different AS's, that is a different setup,
it
> must also have a way of reaching across the hops, an IGP.
nope - works just fine for iBGP as well.
>
> On a IBGP you can have a hop across ie 5 routers in a
Yes, EBGP multihop is between different AS's, that is a different setup, it
must also have a way of reaching across the hops, an IGP.
On a IBGP you can have a hop across ie 5 routers in a IBGP peering session.
As long as the IGP can reach the other peer it will work. Also, the full
mesh requiremen
The Long and Winding Road wrote:
>
> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > All,
> >
> > Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
> >
> > IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one
> another, as long
> as
> > an IGP (most preferably) is running between t
A practise that is becoming quite common is running BGP on the edges of an
AS only. It is a waste for a router in the core to have a full internet
table. The Core could then comprise of ie MPLS which would optimize the
traffic flows.
I cannot remember which book I used but when I was studying for t
Ken,
Technically speaking, even eBGP has the ability to peer with
neighbors that aren't directly connected. Typically, eBGP peers will have
diect physical connectivity, whereas iBGP peers are part of the same AS, as
long as a route/path exist to that peer, connectivity shouldn't be a
probl
wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All,
>
> Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
>
> IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one another, as long
as
> an IGP (most preferably) is running between them.
nope. direct connect is preferred, but nope - don'
9 matches
Mail list logo
