### On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:40:51 -0500, "Abarbanel, Benjamin" ### <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> casually decided to expound upon ### "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>, Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> the ### following thoughts about "RE: BGP without an IGP": BA> into the AS as IBGP routes. But from what I understood Ken original topology BA> he was only talking about reachability within the AS. Reachability between IBGP BA> peers that are more than 1 hop away. Unless memory and past email messages serve me wrong, I believe Ken's topology called for full-mesh. BTW, we ran iBGP full mesh without an IGP quite fine. Okay.. so there's a twist... We did it for IPv6 (before Cisco had IPv6 IS-IS) but I see no reason why it wouldn't also work for IPv4. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/
### On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:58:04 -0800, "Jake Khuon" <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ### casually decided to expound upon "Abarbanel, Benjamin" ### <Benjamin.Abarbanel@Marconi.com> the following thoughts about "Re: BGP ### without an IGP ": JK> Unless memory and past email messages serve me wrong, I believe Ken's Apparently both memory and email message tracking has indeed served me wrong since I posted to the wrong mailing list. I apologise. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/
participants (1)
-
Jake Khuon