nanog mailing list archives
Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media
From: Clayton Fiske <clay () bloomcounty org>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 13:47:58 -0700
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 04:25:00PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
A and B are connected via the same multi-access media. It is technically possible for B to tell A "you can reach 172.16.16.0/24 on the same media that you receive this update on". However what people seem to be saying is that there is no dynamic routing protocol that implements this.
There are two solutions to your dilemma: - Route via B - Add A to 172.16.16.0/24 It's not a matter of dynamic routing, it's just the way subnets work. If you want all the hosts to be able to talk to each other directly, put them all on the same subnet. That you don't want to accept either solution doesn't mean that there is no solution. "I want to define subnets, but I want hosts on said subnets to ignore their boundaries" does not make sense. -c
Current thread:
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media, (continued)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media jlewis (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Ralph Doncaster (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Peter E. Fry (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Pete Templin (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Mark Kent (Oct 06)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Gregory Urban (Oct 08)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Clayton Fiske (Oct 06)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Ralph Doncaster (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 06)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media alex (Oct 07)
- Re: iBGP next hop and multi-access media John M. Brown (Oct 08)