On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Falk Brockerhoff wrote: > Am 29.03.2006 um 14:11 schrieb Henning Brauer: > > Hi Henning, hello list, > > >njet. we don't have any aggregate code, and you're the first one ever > >to ask :) > > Hm, it's unbelievable that I'm the first asking for aggregation :) I > can do aggregation on my core-router, but I think aggregation should > alway be done by the border-routers. Or what's your opinion? >
What do you need to aggregate and why? In most cases a set of network statements on the border routers is enough. Unless you run a big (as in fucking huge) network. You should announce the network range you recieved from your RIR and not splitting it up. Especially it makes no sense to use aggregation on border routers if you do not have use IGP. > >of course! you should have an IBGP that makes your other routes have a > >route to that... like OpenOSPFD :) > > Hm, this is a possibilty. But as I already configured BGP between my > core and border-routers, I think will prefer the nexthop-self solution. > IGP and iBGP are two different things and work in a completely different way. iBGP is used to direct external traffic in the most optimal way out of your network. IGP is used to route incomming and internal traffic including fast rerouting in case of network failures. > >that, again, is sth nobody ever asked for or missed :) > >however, the (completely untested except for compilation) diff below > >should add "set nexthop self". > > Ui, you're realy fast :-) Thank you for your quick response. I'll > compile this and test it with a spare old Cisco-Router as > "Development-Core" next weekend. I'll give you a feedback about it. > Hennings diff looks good. Only minor thing is the missing IPv6 support. -- :wq Claudio
