From: Connary, Julie Ann (jconnary@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:17:54 GMT-3
I had the same results that you did, that prefixes injected into BGP
via the Network command were suppressed by an aggregate-address
summary-only command.
Juli eAnn
P.s. seems to be the same for Version 11.2 and 12.0
At 02:57 PM 1/1/2001 +0800, you wrote:
>Hello, all
>
>Happy new year ^_^
>
>According the BGP4 Case Studies Section 4 in cco:
>Please note that if we are aggregating a network that is injected
>into our BGP via the network statement (ex: network 160.10.0.0 on RTB)
>then the network entry is always injected into BGP updates even
>though we are using "the aggregate summary-only" command.
>
>and I tried this in my lab and got different results, 160.10.0.0
>was really suppressed.
>
>show ip bgp
>*> 160.0.0.0/8 0.0.0.0 32768 i
>s> 160.10.0.0/16 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
>
>show ip bgp 160.10.0.0
>BGP routing table entry for 160.10.0.0/16, version 15
>Paths: (1 available, best #1)
>Advertisements of this net are suppressed by an aggregate.
> Not advertised to any peer
> Local
> 0.0.0.0 from 0.0.0.0 (192.168.1.1)
> Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced,
> local, best, ref
>2
>
>anyone can explain why?
>
>Hiler
>
>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Guoxing Jiang mailto:jianggx@transcentury.com.cn
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:20 GMT-3