Yes, but this step is performed in BGP route selection.
There is no comparison between admin distances of iBGP and eBGP.
Przemek
On Wed, 2002-02-06 at 04:20, Chris Whyte wrote:
> eBGP over iBGP. It's step 7 in the link your reference below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Przemyslaw Karwasiecki [mailto:karwas@ifxcorp.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:00 PM
> > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [nsp] iBGP vs eBGP
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Simple question (maybe a bit tricky):
> >
> > Can you imagine a situation that a difference between
> > administrative distance of iBGP routes will be compared
> > with administrative distance of eBGP
> >
> > This is king of obvious that eBGP learned routes will
> > win with IGP routes (unless backdors are used),
> > but is it possible that BGP selection criteria
> > will yield a result that 2 routes, one learned via eBGP,
> > and other learned via iBGP will compete with each other
> > for a place in roting table?
> >
> > My understanding is that BGP Seletion mechanism:
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml
> > takes place first, and once we have a lucky winner,
> > it will be inserted to routing table with appropriate
> > admin distance.
> >
> > Please enlighten me if I am lost :-)
> >
> > Przemek
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:31 EDT