On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 00:39 Ondrej Zajicek, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 06:25:30PM +0000, Neil Jerram wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ondrej Zajicek <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:39:43AM +0100, Nico Schottelius wrote: > > > > I have had a look at OSPF, but for our relatively simple network it > > > > looks like an overkill. Do you have any other recommendations for > > > > what to run the IGP with instead? > > > > > > > > The main reason I so far tried to stay on iBGP only is to reduce > > > > complexity. > > > > > > Well, you can run just IBGP, if you use direct + 'next hop self' > options, > > > which should be OK in your simple topology. > > > > > > > According to my understanding of the BIRD code, 'next hop self' is only > > relevant when exporting a locally originated route to a BGP peer. So, > > assuming the original question was about what happens on R1 and R2, I > would > > not expect it to be relevant at all. Is that right? > > Option 'next hop self' is relevant in both exporting locally originated > route to a BGP (i.e. a route without existing bgp_next_hop attribute) and > exporting route from BGP to another BGP (i.e. a route with existing > bgp_next_hop attribute). > Thanks, yes, I should have mentioned the second case too. But both cases are on export, so I think my point still stands that 'next hop self' is not relevant to the question that began this thread. (Unless I misunderstood that question.) Best wishes, Neil
