From: Bill Wade (wwade@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 12:33:37 GMT-3
And if his/her answer did not include ttl, would you end the interview?
Bill
was A be At 08:37 AM 12/6/99 , Dave Humphrey wrote:
>Here's a good interview question. What's the difference between a packet
>without ebgp multi-hop set and and one which includes it?
>
>Dave
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Bill Wade <wwade@cisco.com>
>To: Peter Van Oene <vantech@sympatico.ca>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 3:14 AM
>Subject: Re: Re[2]: BGP Update-source
>
>
>> With IBGP there is an IGP to get you to the loopback address which is not
>directly atached. With EBGP, if you peer to a loopback, you need to use
>ebgp-multihop.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:44 AM 12/5/99 , Peter Van Oene wrote:
>> >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