On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Pavel Lunin<[email protected]> wrote: > Nick, folks are telling clever things. > > It is not BGP's deal anyway to control reachability. It's an IGP's task, as > well as the best path calculating. Just let IGP carry loopback /32 prefixes, > then run iBGP on them, not on subifs. iBGP's job is to carry routes > regardless of the topology state.
Ok. Example of physical topology: http://pastebin.ca/1484472 All physical links protected by IS-IS. RR* routers can't keep full BGP table and for this reason ASBR* announce 0/0 route only. If I configure BGP session between ASBR* and use for it lo0 interfaces I will have a loop. Do not you think? > This sort of design is a standard for some last two decades, so it's at > least strange to go a different way. Moreover I can imagine an only reason > why you can't run IGP -- a lack of control plane resources. I hope it's not > you case (with IOS XR, huh :), otherwise static routes will save you (does > IOS XR support BFD for them? :) So fsck... No. IOS XR can't. If I configure (X.X.X.X - subif BGP neighbor, not lo0 address) router static address-family ipv4 unicast X.X.X.X/32 Null0 ! ! BGP session don't drop! In old school IOS a similar construction works great. -- tarantul Dios es Amor _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
