Follow up question on "next hop self"

[Neil Jerram]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 00:39 Ondrej Zajicek, <santiago at crfreenet.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 06:25:30PM +0000, Neil Jerram wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:03 PM Ondrej Zajicek <santiago at crfreenet.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 12:39:43AM +0100, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> > > > I have had a look at OSPF, but for our relatively simple network it
> > > > looks like an overkill. Do you have any other recommendations for
> > > > what to run the IGP with instead?
> > > >
> > > > The main reason I so far tried to stay on iBGP only is to reduce
> > > > complexity.
> > >
> > > Well, you can run just IBGP, if you use direct + 'next hop self'
> options,
> > > which should be OK in your simple topology.
> > >
> >
> > According to my understanding of the BIRD code, 'next hop self' is only
> > relevant when exporting a locally originated route to a BGP peer.  So,
> > assuming the original question was about what happens on R1 and R2, I
> would
> > not expect it to be relevant at all.   Is that right?
>
> Option 'next hop self' is relevant in both exporting locally originated
> route to a BGP (i.e. a route without existing bgp_next_hop attribute) and
> exporting route from BGP to another BGP (i.e. a route with existing
> bgp_next_hop attribute).
>

Thanks, yes, I should have mentioned the second case too.

But both cases are on export, so I think my point still stands that 'next
hop self' is not relevant to the question that began this thread. (Unless I
misunderstood that question.)

Best wishes,
    Neil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20200107/129bc2e3/attachment.htm>