Re: BGP as an IGP (Was Re: IGPs in use)

[Hakan Hansson <hakan () insert net>]

At 11:04 1998-10-14 , Chrisy Luke wrote:
> Sean M. Doran wrote (on Oct 14):
> > 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.
>
> Not necessarily. You just get a more pronounced stepping effect when
> you learn routes whose next-hops are in the same protocol.

Either you have to configure next-hop-self or use static or use other IGP,
otherwise you'll end up with flapping routes in your network. BGP cannot
use a route for next-hop-self address derived by itself, as far as I know.

/Hakan