[c-nsp] BGP routes co-existing with different local-preference

Bruce Pinsky bep at whack.org
Wed Oct 26 18:29:08 EDT 2005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 04:14:12PM -0700, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
> 
>>An alternative to session timer tweaking is running a version that supports
>>BGP Next Hop Tracking and having your next hops propogated in your IGP.
> 
> 
> Which sounds cool, but sorts of contradicts the "established BCP" 
> of using next-hop-self, and not distributing external next-hops in the
> IGP.
> 
> (OTOH, I always said "there are good reasons *not* to use next-hop-self",
> so thanks for adding another one :-) )
> 

Yes, I would agree that in general it is a good practice to use
next-hop-self.  There are some situations such as these where it may not be
practical and "leaking" the real next-hops to get around issues like this
may be necessary, although not desirable.

Additionally, there may be times that you would prefer to dump the traffic
at an earlier point in the network before carrying it all the way to some
border/exit/exchange/customer/whatever router only to drop it on the floor
once it arrives.

- --
=========
bep

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDYAMzE1XcgMgrtyYRAqS8AJoCo+R7G/aTItX5yUkzqAZfGVXPcwCg/xQa
kPznlRm/2FMC3lMAyZ5wvqQ=
=2wRs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list