nanog mailing list archives
Re: Community NO-EXPORT
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 15:55:12 -0600
No, BGP synchronization does indeed refer to the requirement that the destination network be available via the IGP. If it were just the BGP NEXT_HOP value it wouldn't be of much use, as intermediate nodes perform forwarding based on the DA in the packet and [if not synchronized] won't find a match. As a result, the packet will be discarded. Of course, most folks simply have full mesh IBGP (perhaps via RR or confeds) and so there's no reason too enable [or not disable] BGP synchronization. -danny
Color me confused, but isn't the synchronization waiting on the NEXT_HOPs showing up in your IGP, not the actual BGP route? After all, the issue is this: BR-A - (your internal network) - BR-B A route shows up at BR-A with a nexthop of some interface on BR-A (or the loopback interface of BR-A). It is then propogated via iBGP to BR-B. It is only unsafe to install said route and propogate it BR-B's peers if the route's nexthop is not reachable by BR-B. This is a far cry from having to inject your BGP into your IGP. I will note that this isn't how Cisco has it documented, and I don't know how they actually treat the sync issue. The documentation actually says it does wait for the route to show up in the IGP.
Current thread:
- Community NO-EXPORT Dave Cahill (Aug 22)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Brett Frankenberger (Aug 22)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Kai Schlichting (Aug 23)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Bradley Dunn (Aug 23)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Jeff Haas (Aug 24)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Kai Schlichting (Aug 23)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Brett Frankenberger (Aug 22)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Danny McPherson (Aug 23)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Danny McPherson (Aug 24)
- Re: Community NO-EXPORT Yu Ning (Aug 24)