As far as i can see with iBGP there are 2 options :-
1. synchronization is enable and redistribution of BGP into the IGP
2. no synchronization + every router (not just iBGP routers) part of a full mesh iBGP
If you take option 1 - the argument is one of scalability because you are redistributing BGP into OSPF or whatever IGp you have. Lots of routes here. Too many probably.
If you take option 2 - you still have to let transit routers in the AS know about the external routes. They must run BGP? If they don't, then the iBGP peers will enter all the BGP routes in the routing table (that's fine), but when they start forwarding to each other, the transit routers must also know about these routes or they will be dropped and black holed.
I think my summary is correct - if not, please let me know.
Question - what happens in the real world? What do ISP's and the like do? Which option?
Leave aside things like Route Reflectors for now - they just indicate option 2 to me - mesh.
One of the options Service Providers have to enable a BGP free Core is do to enable MPLS on the Core. Enabling MPLS allows all BGP traffic from edge router to edge router to mapped to an LSP and the core need not be aware of BGP and just forward the traffic.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...