We're Sorry, Full Content Access is for Members Only...

If you like to keep on reading, Become a Member Now! Here is why:

  • Learn any CCNA, CCNP and CCIE R&S Topic. Explained As Simple As Possible.
  • Try for Just $1. The Best Dollar You've Ever Spent on Your Cisco Career!
  • Full Access to our 651 Lessons. More Lessons Added Every Week!
  • Content created by Rene Molenaar (CCIE #41726)

426 Sign Ups in the last 30 days

100% Satisfaction Guaranteed!
You may cancel your monthly membership at any time.
No Questions Asked!


Forum Replies

  1. Hi Hamood,

    That’s right, if you source eBGP from the loopback interfaces then you’ll need multihop.

    The problem with the R1-R2-R3 scenario is that R2 will never learn about any prefixes, when R1 tries to reach a network behind R3 (or R3 wants to reach something behind R1) then R2 will receive an IP packet with a destination it doesn’t know about.

    If you really had to use eBGP between R1 and R3 then a GRE tunnel might be a solution…


  2. Hi Rouzbeh,

    In the example with the two interfaces, we use static routes only for the neighbor adjacency. Once BGP is up and running, we’ll use it to advertise networks. With only two routers there’s no need to run BGP, just imagine that R1 and R2 are part of a much larger network with multiple ASes, routers, etc. :slight_smile:


  3. Hi Jason,

    R1(config-router)# neighbor remote-as 2

    That command instructs R1 to establish a neighbor relationship with It does not, however, tell R1 to use any specific interface as source or “from” address when establishing the relationship. By default, BGP will try to use the closest interface to the neighbor to establish the relationship. Knowing this, what do you suppose would happen if we just used the command above to try to establish a BGP neighbor relationship with R2?

    From R2’s perspective it would be receiving packets from R1, but t

    ... Continue reading in our forum

  4. I’m still not clear on why the second scenario requires multihop when the neighbours are directly connected.

    Are you saying that when traffic is sourced from and to a loopback, it is effectively taking 3 hops? (2 of which are virtual within the routers).

  5. Hello Chris

    Essentially, if you use the FastEthernet interfaces to interconnect BGP, then the routers are considered directly connected and you wouldn’t need to use multihop. However, because we are using two redundant links to connect the two routers, if we use the fastEtherent interfaces, and one link goes down, then the BGP connection between them will also go down, thus rendering the redundant link unusable. This is why it is preferable to use the loopback interfaces. However, If you use the loopback interfaces, you can see that these loopbacks are not d

    ... Continue reading in our forum

92 more replies! Ask a question or join the discussion by visiting our Community Forum