[c-nsp] Can I use BGP instead of any IGP?

[vijay gore]

thanks Mark, you cleared my doubts

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:53:35 AM vijay gore wrote:
>
> > do you mean that you can not use BGP instead of IGP, even
> > static route.
>
> Thoroughly speaking, you can't use BGP as an IGP in the
> context of what IGP's are meant to do.
>
> <adding_complexity>
> But in concept, you can use BGP as an IGP, e.g., carrying
> customer and interface prefixes in iBGP instead of in the
> IGP as was normally the case (in order to aid scaling), BGP
> Label Unicast particularly for Seamless MPLS designs (in
> order to aid scaling, as well), e.t.c.
> </adding_complexity>
>
> But for an IGP, i.e., link state routing protocols, e.t.c.,
> BGP doesn't do that. BGP requires an underlying IGP in order
> for its sessions to form - this underlying capability can be
> provided by static routes, connected routes or dynamic
> IGP's.
>
> Mark.
>