On an IX, without next-hop-self peer A leaking peer B's routes they receive to C will have C send direct to B on the IX (assuming flat layer 3 addressing, and not multiple little /30s or /96s everywhere or something - do any exchanges do that?) This may seem more efficient than sending C's traffic to A to get to B (pumping up the IX's usage graphs) but B may not have peering agreements with C. Setting next-hop-self avoids this. An 'advantage' in some views. Not related to n-h-s in an igp specifically, but an interesting (mis)use case. /kc On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 03:06:34PM +0000, craig washington said:
Hello everyone,
Question, what are the true benefits to using the next-hop self feature, doesn't matter what vendor.
Most information I see is just to make sure you have reach-ability for external routes via IBGP, but what if all your IBGP knows the eBGP links?
Is there a added benefit to using next hop self in this situation?
Any feedback is much appreciated, either for the question specifically or whatever else you got ????, L3VPN's or underlying technology that has to have that.
Thanks
-- Ken Chase - math@sizone.org Guelph Canada