[c-nsp] BGP blackholling with communites

[Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)]

>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:17:13AM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
>>> I had assumed that it would bypass the "next-hop-self" action which
>>> may be applied to the peering router's iBGP peers (countering the
>>> ability to propogate the new next-hop around the network), there
>>> are some mixed opinions about whether this should or should not
>>> work to do this, (whether it actually works and is implemented is
>>> another matter!) 
>> 
>> "Origin" has no influence on "next-hop-self" - it's only an
>> attribute that will be used as a tie-breaker somewhere low in the
>> BGP decision hierarchy. 
>> 
> Sure, but I would have hoped that cisco would have used some attribute
> (this being the most sensible one) to decide on how to implement
> next-hop-self.

Why should we stop applying next-hop-self to routes marked with "origin
IGP"? This would possibly break *many* customer configs..

If "neighbor x.x.x.x next-hop-self" is not granular enough, just create
a route-map and set the next-hop manually based on attributes of your
choice (for instance "origin"). 
Or you apply the same route-map inbound on all your iBGP sessions (as
others suggested) or do it centrally on your RR's..

	oli