Since AD is a vendor thing and not a standard, i guess you'll have to
ask Cisco.
My idea would be that since you are more likely to filter prefixes on
ingress eBGP rather on IGP and eBGP usually carries the majority of
prefixes, eBGP maybe was considered more "trustworthy" for the majority
of traf
Anno domini 2018 Hank Nussbacher scripsit:
Hi,
> While giving a routing lecture today someone asked me
> "Why was eBGP assigned an administrative distance of 20 which is better
> than OSPF's administrative distance of 110. What was the logic behind
> that decision?"
> I was unable to think of an
Most likely there’s also some historic reason why it was implemented this way.
BGP synchronisation is also one example where default was at early days to
synchronise,
and nowadays not to synchronise.
Hot-potato routing can definitely be the reason for such a low AD for eBGP.
And, as we nowadays r
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:47:16PM +0300, Jorma Mellin wrote:
> Hot-potato routing can definitely be the reason for such a low AD for eBGP.
Since hot-potato only chooses "eBGP vs iBGP", AD has no relevance here.
Unless you put your eBGP targets into your OSPF, and we all know that
this is no
