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

[Andrew Jones]

In enterprise WAN environments, you could use BGP as the sole routing protocol, if you treat each individual site as a separate AS (private AS numbers offcourse). 

Depending on the size / complexity of the campus, you might still need an IGP within the campus. Again you could treat each individual router as a separate AS, forming ebgp peers across links where dynamic peers would ordinarily appear. 

But just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Andrew Jones

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of vijay gore
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2012 8:19 PM
To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Can I use BGP instead of any IGP?

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.
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/