[j-nsp] Route Reflecting & Next-Hop Self

[Amos Rosenboim]

The way I see it adding more policy statements to the BGP  
configuration has it's own drawbacks as well.
I'm intimately familiar with the network of one of the largest  
international ISPs and they inject the Inter-AS prefixes into their  
IGP and are happy with it.
Of course this doesn't mean it's right, but I really don't think it  
creates such a big problem.

Amos Rosenboim
amos at oasis-tech.net



On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:

> On Wednesday 10 September 2008 07:31:37 Kevin Hodle wrote:
>
>> I agree, this is 'hotly debated' :).. Those who argue
>> against having transfer networks in IGP believe the IGP
>> should be kept 'lean', only loopbacks and internal
>> transfernets to keep the SPF database as small as
>> possible. If you have a large backbone with hundreds of
>> upstream/downstream/peering ports and you try to keep all
>> those transfernets in your IGP, you will eventually start
>> to feel the bloat.
>
> I'm for this. Keep the IGP for your space alone.
>
> Setting the NEXT_HOP self attribute on all iBGP routers in
> the network is recommended practice, across the board.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp