BGP nexthop-self vs. EIGRP redistribution

Pete Templin petelists at
Mon Mar 16 16:33:30 UTC 2009

Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:20:08 am phil at 
> 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.

Any NANOGers running an MPLS network and choosing instead to 
redistribute the relevant connected routes from the peering edge into 
their network (either via IGP or BGP), thereby allowing label switching 
all the way to the PE (and therefore out a particular interface)? 
Next-hop-self seems to trigger penultimate hop popping, resulting in an 
IP lookup on the PE.


More information about the NANOG mailing list