Thought bgp had a gotcha where you couldn't start a neighbor relationship based on a static route.
I'm fairly confident that I remember this. It could be for ibgp only, or maybe just for ebgp. You may want to take a look Tim -----Original Message----- From: Scott H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BGP issue ??? [7:37730] 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=37735&t=37730 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
