From: Chad Marsh (chad@xxxxxx)
Date: Fri Sep 03 1999 - 20:04:40 GMT-3
Edward, unfortunately I can't help you. Although it doesn't surprise me
that BGP isn't working the way that you (or I) would expect. If you do
get to the bottom of it, please post your findings to the list,
inquiring minds want to know...
Chad Marsh
> Edward Taggart wrote:
>
> I have 2 bgp problems that are driving me crazy.
>
> Question 1: I have 3 routers in the same AS. They are connected as
> follows:
>
> R3 <---> R2 <---> R5
>
> They all can reach each other fine through OSPF routes. R5 also has a
> loopback that is being redistributed via OSPF. I configured 2 peer
> statments on all routers providing a full mesh for the IBGP AS (all
> sessions show active). The network that the loopback's address
> resides in is being advertised to BGP by R5. When doing a "show ip
> bgp" it shows up in all 3 routers bgp table. However, R3 does not
> advertise the route to an external AS. When doing a "debug ip bgp
> update" on R3 I see that it is complaining that the loopbacks network
> is not synchronized. However, the loopbacks network is in the IGP
> routing table..
>
> Now, if I remove the peer statements between R3 & R5 and setup R2 with
> router-reflector-client statements, R3 advertises the route to the
> loopback to the external AS.
>
> How I understood it was that routers in the same AS do not need to be
> directly connected to their peers, they just need IP reachability to
> them and a full mesh peer configuration (or route a reflector). What
> am I missing?
>
>
> Qustion 2:
> If I have an OSPF route and BGP route on a router for the same
> network, what would keep the BGP route from injecting itself into the
> routing table given that BGP has a lower administrative distance than
> OSPF?
>
> The following is from a "show ip bgp" command
> *> 192.192.2.0 132.4.7.5 0 100 0 (1034 1099)
> i
>
> The following is from a show ip route from the same router as above:
> O E2 192.192.2.0/24 [110/20] via 132.4.8.2, 00:37:01, Serial1
>
> This particular router is in it's own AS so the 192.192.2.0 route is
> coming in from AS1034 then AS1099..
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking through both
> Caslow's and Halabi's books and can't seem to find the answer to these
> problems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:50 GMT-3