BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution

Mon Mar 16 16:28:42 UTC 2009

On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:20:08 am phil at mindfury.net 
wrote:

> My question is, which is the correct method of
> implementing this?  Should we be redistributing static
> and connected routes on our borders into IGP, and not
> using next-hop-self?  Or should we not redistribute and
> use next-hop-self?

I always recommend setting the NEXT_HOP attribute to 'self' 
for all iBGP sessions at the (peering) edge, and using your 
IGP to provide reachability to all Loopback addresses in the 
network. This scales quite well.

And while IGP/BGP redistribution may be possible, we tend to 
avoid it as much as possible.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090317/dd990bb1/attachment.sig>