At 12:49 PM 4/7/02, JohnZ wrote: >Thanks Priscilla, as always thanks for your well informed answer. I think I >was confused about "race condition". In this case to me it seems that if >iBGP continues to show reachability while the IGP session is down it will >send traffic even though without IGP there will be no means for this traffic >to reach it's destination. Am I correct in saying that ?
Sounds right to me. But, of course, BGP will soon figure out something is wrong because the keepalives will fail. >""JohnZ"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > "IP connectivity has to be achieved via a protocol different from BGP; > > otherwise, the session will be in a race condition. An example of a race > > condition follows: neighbors can reach one another via some IGP, the BGP > > session gets established, and the BGP updates get exchanged. The IGP > > connection goes away for some reason, but still the BGP TCP session is up > > because neighbors can still reach each other via BGP. Eventually the >session > > will go down because the BGP session cannot depend on BGP itself for > > neighbor reachability" > > > > > > > > Wouldn't the same condition occur if reachability is acheived via a > > different protocol. If the route becomes unreachable then BGP conectivity > > will still be lost.What's the advantage of making sure that "race >condition" > > is avoided. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > JZ ________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40778&t=40690 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
