From: jaarons-hotmail (jaarons@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Dec 02 1999 - 20:44:19 GMT-3
If it's IBGP and not directly connected you NEED ebgp-multihop.
----- Original Message -----
From: Manjeet Chawla <mchawla@asanet.com>
To: Martin Bander <cisco103@hotmail.com>
Cc: <honsiong@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Update-source
> I think Hon is running IBGP and that does not require ebgp-multihop.
> Reachibiliity between the peers via IGP or Static Route should establish
the
> sessions.
>
> -Manjeet
>
> Martin Bander wrote:
>
> > Don't forget the ebgp-multihop comand, since r1's loopback interface is
not
> > 'directly connected' to r2.
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "hon-siong chan" <honsiong@hotmail.com>
> > Reply-To: "hon-siong chan" <honsiong@hotmail.com>
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: BGP Update-source
> > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 20:28:02 PST
> >
> > I followed Sam Halabi book on configuring a simple BGP peering by
pointing
> > to a loopback interface. Scenario is as simple as follows:
> >
> > -----R1 --------R2
> >
> > Where R1 has a loopback interface and both are in same AS. In R1,
command
> > as:
> >
> > neighbor <R2> remote-as 100
> > neighbor <R2> update-source loopback 0
> >
> > The peering can never be established since then. A "Sh ip bgp neigh"
showed
> > "Active" status only?!
> >
> > What's wrong?
> >
> > Thanks in advance....
> >
> > HonSiong
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:58 GMT-3