Re: BGP next-hop

[Heath Jones <hj1980 () gmail com>]

> Section 9.1.2.1 of RFC 4271 seems to address this.
> A few points from that section:
>  - The BGP NEXT_HOP can not recursively resolve (directly or indirectly) through the BGP route.
>  - Only the longest matching route should be considered when resolving the BGP NEXT_HOP.
>  - Do not consider feasible routes that would become unresolvable if they were installed.

There are 2 ways of reading that.. Perhaps i'll go and look at the it
in more details.
I'm trying to think of a scenario where following this or something
similar would break it:
- Don't use BGP prefixes to resolve next-hop.
- You can use 0/0 or any route with a lower administrative distance to
resolve the next-top.

With that in mind, I wonder if it works with Juniper (ad = 170 vs 20
from memory)..