I guess that one must look at IBGP and EBGP as two different protocols then...I think that is where a lot of my confusion has come in! Thanks to everyone for the help.
""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Robert, > > At 03:48 PM 8/3/2002 +0000, Robert D. Cluett wrote: > >Wow...making sense now! One more question... > > > >So an IBGP session as stated in the book, is made by use of the neighbor > >command. Either, you have your directly connected neighbors defined in each > >router or, you have the use of route reflectors? The only way you can > >defined a neighbor that is more than one hop (router) away is by using the > >multihop command? Is this true? > > IBGP does not require the use of multihop and indeed, it is quite normal > for IBGP neighbors to be more than one hop away. Most folks peer to > loopback address which eliminates the possibility of directly connected > IBGP connections. EBGP on the other hand assumes link local connectivity > and sends packets with a TTL of 1. Mutlihop allows you to extend the value > of the TTL beyond 1 toward 254 to allow for non link local peering. > > > > > >You can tell I have never seen BGP in a production environment (BGP is > >drastically different than what I am used to being, OSPF). > > > >""YASSER ALY"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > The statement in the book means that either all IBGP peers are fully > > > meshed ( which is a logical mesh not mandatory a physical one ), or use > > > Route Reflectors to reduce the number of IBGP sessions needed. > > > > > > For example, if you have 10 routers that want to run IBGP over, those > > > 10 routers doesn't have to have direct physical connections from each > > > router to the others to initiate this Full Mesh - logical - IBGP > > > sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Another example, we can have a full logical IBGP sessions between those > > > 3 routers > > > > > > which are Ra-Rb, Ra-Rc, Rb-Rc while not having a full physical mesh ( Ra > > > & Rc are not directly physically connected together ) > > > > > > RouterA----------RouterB-------RouterC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Group, > > > > > > > >In reading the BSCN book, I have stumbled across something confusing > > > when it >is discussing "route reflectors". The books states that the use > > > of route >reflectors eliminates the need to run BGP in a full mesh > > > environment. Based >on this statement I have assumed that BGP therefore > > > must be configured only >on a network that is fully meshed (unless route > > > reflectors are used). Is >this true? > >Robert D. Cluett, CCNA > > > > > > > misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=50604&t=50573 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
