From: Stanislav Sinyagin (SSinyagin@xxxxxx)
Date: Sat Dec 04 1999 - 10:37:01 GMT-3
You didn't give your addressing plan, so I might be wrong. But there
are some issues that can be pointed at once:
MC> ********************************R1 ***************************
MC> hostname R1
MC> !
MC> interface Loopback0
MC> ip address 10.10.10.10 255.255.255.0
MC> !
MC> router bgp 2
MC> no synchronization
MC> network 192.168.13.0
MC> neighbor 192.168.12.2 remote-as 2
MC> neighbor 192.168.12.2 route-reflector-client
MC> neighbor 192.168.13.2 remote-as 2
MC> neighbor 192.168.13.2 route-reflector-client
MC> neighbor 192.168.13.2 next-hop-self
MC> !
Both neighbors must have next-hop-self
MC> * i40.0.0.0 192.168.12.2 0 100 0 1 i
MC> * i192.168.12.0 192.168.12.2 0 100 0 i
*>>i192.168.13.0 192.168.13.1 0 100 0 i
MC> * i192.168.24.0 192.168.12.2 0 100 0 i
MC> R3#
MC> R3#
MC> R3#
MC> R3#
For 40.0.0.0, the next hop is 192.168.12.2 (that's because you didn't
put next-h-self somewhere upstream). Since R3 knows nothing about
192.168.12.2, this route is not put into the routing table, and hence
it's not advertized to R5.
Usually in a production network, there are either static or dynamic
routes to each BGP party's loopback. Or, next-hop-self everywhere.
Stan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:58 GMT-3