Chris,
The RFC doesn't says anything about this. Best practices would recommend to
use a route as specific as possible (/32) for the peer address when using
eBGP multihop. This will help avoiding instability. The check for 0/0 is
just a safeguard but doesn't ensure that will not shoot yourself in the foot.
Regards,
At 01:15 AM 6/21/2002 +0800, you wrote:
>Dear Harold,
>
>So the router will only check when it is going to establish the session,
>but not when it replies to OPEN message. Am I right? Is it mentioned
>in RFC?
>
>I am having a big problem with this behaviour. Is it possible to have
>the router to also check when it replies?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Chris
>
>Harold Ritter wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > This check is made by the BGP code on both side since both end will try to
> > establish the session. Once you put a more specific route on one side, the
> > BGP check is satisfied and the BGP session establishment can then proceed.
> >
> > At 12:32 AM 6/21/2002 +0800, you wrote:
> > >i am wondering why i don't need to have more specific route for the
> > >session to be up in another router, where only default route is there.
> > >i would like it not to be up in this case.
> > >
> > >thanks.
> > >
> > >chris
> > >
> > >Harold Ritter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Chris,
> > > >
> > > > BGP will purposely not use the default route to establish the
> session to a
> > > > peer. Use anything more specific and the session will come up.
Harold Ritter, CCIE 4168
Advanced Network Services - ISP East
Cisco Systems
300 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824 USA
Phone: 978 497 3129
Fax: 978 497 3129
Cisco Systems- "Empowering the Internet Generation."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:48 EDT