From: Chad Marsh (chad@xxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 29 1999 - 13:52:00 GMT-3
Yes, but, if not by OSPF, then by iBGP only, in which case
synchronization would have to be disabled before R2 would advertise the
route to R3 via BGP.
Chad Marsh
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
>
> I agree that "no synchronization" here does not change its behaviour.
> The route is always in R2's routing table, if not by OSPF, then by BGP.
>
> Stan
>
> > Shouldn't matter if R2 is learning about 192.192.2.2/32 via OSPF from
> > R1. Is that truly the case though?
> >
> >
> > Chad Marsh
> >
> >
> > Scott Morris wrote:
> > >
> > > Ahhh... Missed that tidbit. Chalk it up to not being awake on a Monday
> > > morning. :) You are correct, R2 shouldn't have one. First question I wo
uld
> > > have for you would be do you have a "no synchronization" statement under
> > > your BGP config on all routers? that would make things difficult
> > > otherwise...
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stanislav Sinyagin [mailto:SSinyagin@mtu.ru]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 8:30 AM
> > > To: Scott Morris
> > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: BGP Filter list
> > >
> > > No, you're not right. In my example, R1 s originating the route,
> > > and R2 is only propagating it to R3. R2 should not have the network
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > Stan
> > >
> > > > You always need to have network statements within a routing protocol...
> > > > That shouldn't be odd.
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Stanislav Sinyagin [mailto:SSinyagin@mtu.ru]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 3:36 AM
> > > > To: Scott Morris; 'Manjeet Chawla'
> > > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: BGP Filter list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guys, I'll tell you what I encountered on the lab (IOS 11.2) and repeat
ed
> > > it
> > > >
> > > > in my tesrtbed (IOS 12.0, the simptoms are the same).
> > > >
> > > > R1 --- R2 --- R3
> > > > AS10 AS10 AS20
> > > >
> > > > R1 and R2 run IBGP, R2 and R3 run EBGP. All routers belong to
> > > > Confederation 100. All routers know each other via OSPF.
> > > >
> > > > R1 has loopback 192.192.2.2/32 and annpounces it via BGP.
> > > > R2 sees it OK, but R3 does not. All the routers were configured first
> > > > for OSPF, then for BGP. No filters. On R2, sh ... advertised-routes
> > > > shows that it doesn't advertise anything to R3.
> > > >
> > > > The problem was solved by putting on R2 the line
> > > > network 192.192.2.2 mask 255.255.255.255
> > > > though by all rules this line is odd.
> > > >
> > > > At home, I configured it, and the reaction was the same.
> > > >
> > > > After I reloaded R2, all went good.
> > > >
> > > > Stan
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Scott Morris <SMorris@tele-tech.com>
> > > > To: 'Manjeet Chawla' <mchawla@asanet.com>; Scott Morris
> > > > <SMorris@tele-tech.com>
> > > > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 03:18
> > > > Subject: RE: BGP Filter list
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm... Go figure. Well, on the other hand, sometimes reloading is
the
> > > > > only solution. It solves some amazing problems "just because" (grin)
.
> > > >
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:56 GMT-3