From: Peter Van Oene (vantech@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Dec 05 1999 - 02:44:01 GMT-3
I'm certainly no expert in BGP, however whenever I use looback addresses
(which is whenever I use BGP) I always use the EBGP-Multi-hop statement.
Given that the two loopbacks are essentially a minimum of 2 hops away, I
would see that this command is relevant. How would the router differentiate
it from any other network that was not directly connected?
Peter Van Oene
Senior Systems Engineer
UNIS LUMIN Inc.
www.unislumin.com
Convergis Member Company
www.convergis.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanislav Sinyagin <SSinyagin@mtu.ru>
To: Martin Bander <cisco103@hotmail.com>
Cc: <honsiong@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 11:14 AM
Subject: Re[2]: BGP Update-source
> Ebgp-multihop is not required at all in this scenario. Your bgp
> session is "Active" because one of your routers does not know how to
> reach the other's loopback. You should tell it by static or dynamic
> routing. And make sure that both point to each other's loopback and
> have update-src loopback, or both point to other's physical interface
> (and no updare-src at all).
>
> Regards,
> Stan
>
> Martin Bander <cisco103@hotmail.com> wrote:
> MB> Don't forget the ebgp-multihop comand, since r1's loopback interface
is not
> MB> 'directly connected' to r2.
>
>
> MB> ----Original Message Follows----
> MB> From: "hon-siong chan" <honsiong@hotmail.com>
> MB> Reply-To: "hon-siong chan" <honsiong@hotmail.com>
> MB> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> MB> Subject: BGP Update-source
> MB> Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 20:28:02 PST
>
> MB> I followed Sam Halabi book on configuring a simple BGP peering by
pointing
> MB> to a loopback interface. Scenario is as simple as follows:
>
> MB> -----R1 --------R2
>
> MB> Where R1 has a loopback interface and both are in same AS. In R1,
command
> MB> as:
>
> MB> neighbor <R2> remote-as 100
> MB> neighbor <R2> update-source loopback 0
>
> MB> The peering can never be established since then. A "Sh ip bgp neigh"
showed
> MB> "Active" status only?!
>
> MB> What's wrong?
>
> MB> Thanks in advance....
>
> MB> HonSiong
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:21:58 GMT-3