nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)
From: "Sean M. Doran" <smd () clock org>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:45:31 -0700
Chrisy Luke wrote: | Paul G. Donner wrote (on Oct 13): | > If BGP rides on TCP, how are the TCP sessions built if BGP itself is used | > as the IGP? | | Same way as it does when you take next-hops from any other IGP. The fact | that one already has a route to ones' directly attached networks. In other words, the interior routing protocol is either static or a combination of statically configured routes and the likes of ARP/ES-IS/other neighbour discovery protocols. The key point is that, in a router talking iBGP, the route to the NEXT_HOP received by an iBGP neighbour *MUST* be known through means other than BGP. This is not to say that the route need be dynamic -- a static default route would do just fine. Sean.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Sean M. Doran (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Hakan Hansson (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Neil J. McRae (Oct 15)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Hakan Hansson (Oct 14)
- Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use) Chrisy Luke (Oct 14)