North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
FW: Next Hop Attribute
- From: Charles Smith
- Date: Thu Mar 29 09:40:04 2001
re-posted for broader audience:
My apologies if this has been discussed recently...
Is there a collective wisdom as to why the BGP RFC makes the statements that
it does about the BGP next hop attribute? Specifically:
(From RFC 1771): "A BGP speaker must never advertise an address of a peer to
as a NEXT_HOP, for a route that the speaker is originating. A BGP
speaker must never install a route with itself as the next hop.
When a BGP speaker advertises the route to a BGP speaker located in
its own autonomous system, the advertising speaker shall not modify
the NEXT_HOP attribute associated with the route. When a BGP speaker
receives the route via an internal link, it may forward packets to
the NEXT_HOP address if the address contained in the attribute is on
a common subnet with the local and remote BGP speakers."
At routers that have EBGP session injecting routes into its own AS on Cisco
routers we set the next-hop-self attribute to eliminate synchronization
issues, but I'm curious as to why the RFC made these requirements in the
Thank you for any brain cycles spent on this.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com