nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution
From: Pete Templin <petelists () templin org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:33:30 -0500
Mark Tinka wrote:
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:20:08 am phil () mindfury net wrote:My question is, which is the correct method of implementing this? Should we be redistributing static and connected routes on our borders into IGP, and not using next-hop-self? Or should we not redistribute and use next-hop-self?I always recommend setting the NEXT_HOP attribute to 'self' for all iBGP sessions at the (peering) edge, and using your IGP to provide reachability to all Loopback addresses in the network. This scales quite well.
Any NANOGers running an MPLS network and choosing instead to redistribute the relevant connected routes from the peering edge into their network (either via IGP or BGP), thereby allowing label switching all the way to the PE (and therefore out a particular interface)? Next-hop-self seems to trigger penultimate hop popping, resulting in an IP lookup on the PE.
pt
Current thread:
- BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution phil (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Mark Tinka (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Pete Templin (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Mark Tinka (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Pete Templin (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Jack Bates (Mar 16)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Pekka Savola (Mar 18)
- Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution Mark Tinka (Mar 16)