nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP next-hop
From: "Smith W. Stacy" <stacy () acm org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:56:22 -0600
On Sep 30, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
it seems it gets the bgp route for 147.28.0.0/16 and then can not resolve the next hop. it would not recurse to the default exit. of course it was solved by ip route 147.28.0.0 255.255.0.0 42.666.77.11 but i do not really understand in my heart why i needed to do this.
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. --Stacy
Current thread:
- Re: BGP next-hop, (continued)
- Re: BGP next-hop Leo Bicknell (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Peter Hicks (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Randy Bush (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Franck Martin (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Ingo Flaschberger (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Randy Bush (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Heath Jones (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Randy Bush (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Brett Watson (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Peter Hicks (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Leo Bicknell (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Christian Martin (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Smith W. Stacy (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Heath Jones (Sep 30)
- Re: BGP next-hop Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 30)