From: Bill Wade (wwade@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 16:31:58 GMT-3
The command -
neigh x.x.x.x ebgp-multihop 'hops'
Causes there to be no check to determine if the neighbor is directly connected
prior to transitioning from idle to connect. Then TTL is set based on 'hops' a
nd the session is established if the peer is < 'hops' away.
Bill
At 12:21 PM 12/6/99 , Dave Humphrey wrote:
>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