thanks Mark, you cleared my doubts On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/
