From: Dave Humphrey (dave.humphrey@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 14:21:32 GMT-3
No, I've never asked it. It was a question a friend of mine got at an
interview with INS.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanislav Sinyagin <SSinyagin@mtu.ru>
To: Dave Humphrey <dave.humphrey@virgin.net>; Bill Wade <wwade@cisco.com>;
Peter Van Oene <vantech@sympatico.ca>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: BGP Update-source
> which packet -- BGP update or the routed data ?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dave Humphrey <dave.humphrey@virgin.net>
> To: Bill Wade <wwade@cisco.com>; Peter Van Oene <vantech@sympatico.ca>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 16:37
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: BGP Update-source
>
>
> > 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