nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:01:08 +0800
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:33:30 am Pete Templin wrote:
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.
Have you considered an explicit-null label value advertised by the LER? Is your goal preservation of QoS information? Cheers, Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
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)