No. Synch does not have any effect here. The issue is to create the initial neighbor relationship. Synch only matters when you are trying to get routes into the route table.
""David j"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > If you disable synchronization, will it work fine? > Scott H. wrote: > > > > Yes. BGP needs to know how to get to that neighbor and since > > they are not > > directly connected or running a common IGP, you need a static > > route. > > > > ""Stanzin Takpa"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > In the following cisco configuration , Is the static route > > necessary, > > either > > > it is ebgp or ibgp? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ROUTER-A > > > interface Loopback0 > > > ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 > > > ! > > > interface Serial1 > > > ip address 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0 > > > ! > > > router bgp 400 > > > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 400 > > > neighbor 1.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0 > > > ! > > > ip route 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.2 > > > > > > > > > ROUTER-B > > > interface Loopback0 > > > ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.255 > > > ! > > > interface Serial1 > > > ip address 10.10.10.2 255.255.255.0 > > > ! > > > router bgp 400 > > > neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 400 > > > neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0 > > > ! > > > ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 10.10.10.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Stanzin Takpa Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=37734&t=37730 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
