On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:53:35 AM vijay gore wrote: > do you mean that you can not use BGP instead of IGP, even > static route.
Thoroughly speaking, you can't use BGP as an IGP in the context of what IGP's are meant to do. <adding_complexity> But in concept, you can use BGP as an IGP, e.g., carrying customer and interface prefixes in iBGP instead of in the IGP as was normally the case (in order to aid scaling), BGP Label Unicast particularly for Seamless MPLS designs (in order to aid scaling, as well), e.t.c. </adding_complexity> But for an IGP, i.e., link state routing protocols, e.t.c., BGP doesn't do that. BGP requires an underlying IGP in order for its sessions to form - this underlying capability can be provided by static routes, connected routes or dynamic IGP's. Mark. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
