From: Bob Sinclair (bob@bobsinclair.net)
Date: Thu Nov 29 2007 - 14:59:54 ART
Eric Phillips wrote:
> So it appears synchronization is
> treating them like EBGP routes, but they have the AD of IBGP routes.
>
Right. It is useful to break down the bgp peering types into three
types: Internal, External, and Confederatioin External. There are five
ways (I know of) in which a Confederation EBGP peering is like an IBGP
peering:
AD
MED
Next-hop
AS-PATH length
local-preference
In every other respect, including sync, Confederation EBGP is like
External BGP.
> If so, that would make it possible to basically circumvent synchronization
> if you made every router it's own sub-AS within a confederation, right?
YUP. In terms of sync, Confederation peering is like Real External
Peering. Sync is irrelevant to routes learned from a confederation peer.
> And
> as a slight formality, the link between R2 and R3 is considered EBGP,
> right? So if a question said "do not use EBGP" that would rule
> confederations out; right?
>
That would definitely be a question for a proctor.
Hth,
--Bob Sinclair CCIE 10427 CCSI 30427 www.netmasterclass.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:32 ART