[c-nsp] IOS XR BGP

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:06:28 AM Keegan Holley 
wrote:

>  It's cleaner to have a route type for aggregates than a
> static null0 route with the same default preference of a
> static route.

Why would it be cleaner?

The static route is basically used to pull-up the aggregate 
into BGP. This points to a Null interface on all BGP-
speaking routers, ensuring packets that arrive for subnets 
not in iBGP or the IGP get dropped, and also announcing said 
routes to eBGP neighbors. 

Works. Simple. Effective.

> Another is not having eBGP routes
> preferred over iBGP route.

Your aggregates would be in your iBGP. Would you expect to 
learn your aggregates from outside your routing domain?

> At the risk of starting yet
> another trite cisco vs. juniper thread, what do you mean
> by preferred device?

What I meant is if we were comparing a Cisco and a Juniper 
and the Cisco turned to be more preferred save for this one 
feature the Juniper had. 

I wasn't implying Cisco are better than Juniper, or vice 
versa.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20111129/be67e0bc/attachment-0001.sig>