dr at cluenet.de
Sun Oct 10 14:27:09 EDT 2004
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:10:31AM -0700, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> > I wonder wether enabling/disabling include-mp-next-hop affects only
> > direct peers or wether it is transitive throughout IBGP.
> It is a non-transitive issue. It is mostly a matter of encoding
> between two peers.
OK, so as long as one is fairly sure, that all direct BGP neighbors
will be fine without the NEXT_HOP attribute, I can disable it without
fear of breaking anything.
> No, the information enchanged in both circusntances is the same. The
> only difference is that w/ include-mp-next-hop you send 4 bytes of 0s
> w/ a null NEXT_HOP attribute that will be ignored.
And what happens if there is a peer which requires it? Will they
drop the session with a malformed update notification, or just spit
error messages in log? Background: when disabling the option, will
I immediately see wether I broke a peer, or does one have to wait
for complaints... and wether this might have operational impact or
just log messages.
> In summary, dont use the include-mp-next-hop knob. Unless you happen
> to be interoperating w/ a box that absolutly requires it. Probably
> time to deprecate it and hide it in the config since i don't think
> this is actually required any longer.
Well, unless one of your customers needs it... :-Z
Thanks for the clarification.
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
More information about the juniper-nsp