I'd like to add that one major advantage is limiting next-hops, thus labels in your network. This is not just theoretical concern but there are plenty of practical networks using practical hardware where you simply cannot expose all next-hops to every node.
On 1 December 2017 at 17:30, Ken Chase <m...@sizone.org> wrote: > 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 - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada -- ++ytti
