This problem has nothing to do with Route Reflection and is simply the
typical behavior for IBGP. Next_Hop attributes are not changed throughout
the AS. Your indication of the two methods of handling next hop resolution
are accurate, and which you use tends to be a point of preference. I find
t
Hi,
There are two eBGP border routers, each configured to run as route
reflector. One problem I noticed is that the routes from external AS
will be passed to the RR client without the any change to nexthop by the
border router. Thus the nexthop of this routes remain as the interface
addr of the
Hi,
There are two eBGP border routers, each configured to run as route
reflector. One problem I noticed is that the routes from external AS
will be passed to the RR client without the any change to nexthop by the
border router. Thus the nexthop of this routes remain as the interface
addr of the
Hi,
There are two eBGP border routers, each configured to run as route
reflector. One problem I noticed is that the routes from external AS
will be passed to the RR client without the any change to nexthop by the
border router. Thus the nexthop of this routes remain as the interface
addr of the
I suppose this kind if thing depends on how many peers and BGP sessions the
BR will have configured on it. What is your definition of a BR - purely an
eBGP termination point?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14896&t=14762
5 matches
Mail list logo
