From: Chuah Eng Wee (chuahew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jul 28 1999 - 07:49:09 GMT-3
Hi Joe,
>Does r2 know how to get to the next hop (R3 interface) for that route via an
>IGP?
Yes, R2 does know how to get to the next hop r3. In fact, I use OSPF
as the IGP and include the segment between r3 and r1 inside ospf.
The BGP table at r2 is ok, i.e I saw the > sign indicating that
it doesn't have problem with the next-hop.
Any other thing I miss out ??
Thanks
Eng Wee
>
>-joe
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph M. Soricelli, CCIE #4803, CCNP
> EMAIL: jsoricelli@ccci.com
>
> Chesapeake Computer Consultants, Inc.
> 8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 101E Phone: (703) 207-0757
> Falls Church, VA 22042 Fax: (703) 207-0441
>
> FYI - About Chesapeake: We are a Cisco Certified Training and
> professional services partner. We offer most of the Cisco
> training courses as well as training for Fore, NetScout, and
> CheckPoint-1 Firewalls. We provide network consulting services,
> including design, network health, management, firewall,
> and problem solving. We now have 21 CCIEs on our staff
> of instructor/consultants.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chuah Eng Wee <chuahew@cyberway.com.sg>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Date: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 2:56 AM
>Subject: Question on Synchronization
>
>
>>Hi..
>>
>>Some questions on synchronisation. Below is the setup
>>
>> [r6]
>> / \
>>[r1]/ \[r2]
>> |
>> |
>>[r3]
>>
>>
>>r1,r6,r2 in AS 100; r1 and r2 running IBGP
>>r3 in AS 200
>>
>>r3 announced the network 10.10.10.0 to r1 via EBGP.
>>r2 then rx 10.10.10.0 in its BGP table via IBGP from r1.
>>r2 did not put the route 10.10.10.0 into its IP routing
>>table becos it does not know how to reach 10.10.10.0.
>>This is a synchronisation issue.
>>
>>So I put a static route
>>ip route 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 next-hop-to-r6
>>
>>with this statement, there is a static entry in the routing
>>table. But debug ip bgp update shows that it is not synchronised.
>>
>>BGP: nettable_walker 10.10.10.0/255.255.255.0 calling revise_route
>>BGP: revise route installing 10.10.10.0/255.255.255.0 -> 128.213.63.2
>>BGP: nettable_walker 10.10.10.0/255.255.255.0 not synchronized
>>
>>
>>WHY ?? I thot syncrhonisation rule states that if IGP knows the route
>>it'll be considered synchronised and the router will advertise
>>the route to external peers.
>>
>>Any advice ??
>>
>>Thanks
>>Eng Wee
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:43 GMT-3