Thanks everyone. This discussion confirms what we thought, All routers in the
transit path between E-BGP edge devices need to be running I-BGP. In our case,
we can't do that. Our internal routers are Cat6509 with standard sup720. Not
enough ram/tcam.
So the GRE tunnels between our EBGP edge will do the job... Thanks again
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: I-BGP/IGP question
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:55:40 -0400
I've often wondered how large ISPs handle some basic IGP design issues re
routing between I-BGP nodes in the network.
For example .. assume two BGP routers connected over a backbone running some
kind of IGP I-BGP uses the local IGP to route to other I-BGP nodes within the
ASThe I-BGP next-hop address is the Egress I-BGP node (normally) or the IBPG
peer loopbackBest practice says to keep the IGP small, for example just the
I-BGP loopbacks So a potential routing table entry in router BGP1 would be
something like
Rtr BGP1 can reach '8.8.8.8/32 via 10.10.10.10, where 10.10.10.10 is router
BGP-2s loopback address and BGP-2 is the egress router
So far so good. .. I understand all this part. But my puzzle is .. for this to
work, the IGP would also need to have a route for 8.8.8.8. so it can route it
to my other IBGP router at 10.10.10.10But my IGP doesn't have a route for
8.8.8.8 as I don't redistribute BGP into IGPSo catch-22 .
I've resolved this internally using tunnels between my I-BGP routers and using
next-hop-self. But I'm pretty small scale .. How do larger organisations do
it?
I'm guessing MPLS TE or other tunnels between the POPs .. but would like to
hear from some folks that have done it.Thanks WS
(apologies for any dups..)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
