What's the general consensus for how a low-memory BGP speaker, multi-homed to two full-table-sucking iBGP speakers should receive and use a default route from both full-table-sucking iBGP speakers?
The general idea in my head is pretty straight forward - big-ass routers originate a default towards low-mem router in the VRF where the default is required, low-mem router enables ibgp maximum-paths 2 in the same VRF and Bob's your uncle. Is that still pretty much the defacto standard? Any arguments for/against ip route 0 null0 ; router bgp x ; network 0 vs ip route 0 null 0; router bgp x ; redistribute static vs some other method? Thanks in advance.. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
