-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John Neiberger wrote:
> In the case I'm thinking of using it, we do all over our internal BGP > peering to loopbacks, which are in OSPF. If we enable fallover, it sounds > like the peer will be torn down as soon as that next hop is removed from > the routing table. One problem we have that I'm trying to solve is that we > also have a null0 static route used for aggregation for the loopback > addresses. This static route stops the BGP routes from being invalidated > until the peer goes down because the next hop is technically still > reachable, although via Null0. I'm pondering the use of selective next-hop > filtering so that only /32 routes in OSPF can be used to validate next > hops, but I wonder if just enabling fallover would be better option. We > aren't using BFD right now. Not sure why. It seems like using fallover with > BFD would be an excellent solution to this problem. > As I mentioned, there is no dampening mechanism on fast fall-over and peers are dropped immediately when the next hop is lost. If the next-hop of the routing entries is the same as the peering address, then next-hop tracking should be sufficient to cause the routes to flush from the RIB if reachability is lost and next-hop tracking has a delay/dampening mechanism built in. - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlE+FGUACgkQE1XcgMgrtyZuQACfVCtmFdMUzAWzknpsrNs2xD4N dUgAnRfi5NtL3XPHS/xvcoNKRAENg4Ai =tI/s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
