From: Michael Le (mmle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 20:35:32 GMT-3
Remember that you have to have the exact route in your ip table for bgp to
advertise. So be careful about referencing the routes as 44.0.0.0 and
45.0.0.0. They should be explicityly listed as 44.1.1.0 and 45.1.1.0 in the
network statements.
Michael Le
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Bill Dellamar
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:28 PM
To: Virnoche, Phil; CCIE newsgroup (E-mail)
Subject: Re: BGP problem
your access list 1 references a 41.0.0.0 network,
whereas the static routes reference a 44.0.0.0 and
45.0.0.0
Bill
--- "Virnoche, Phil" <phil.virnoche@attws.com> wrote:
> r3 (BGP 2) ---------------- r4 (BGP 1)
> Prior to adding the filter1 out statement I could
> see both the static routes
> on r4 at r3 when i issued an "sh ip bgp"
> command,.............
> After adding the filter, and issuing a "clear ip bgp
> * " command and letting
> the two re-establish, I get nothing at r3.....
> ideas?
>
>
> R4:
> router bgp 1
> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> redistribute static
> neighbor 10.33.1.65 remote-as 2
> neighbor 10.33.1.65 ebgp-multihop 2
> neighbor 10.33.1.65 update-source Loopback0
> neighbor 10.33.1.65 route-map filter1 out
> no auto-summary
> !
> ip classless
> ip route 44.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 Null0
> ip route 45.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 Null0
> no ip http server
> !
> access-list 1 permit 41.1.1.0
> access-list 2 permit 200.200.200.0
> route-map filter1 permit 10
> match ip address 1
> !
> route-map filter1 permit 20
> match ip address 2
> set metric 5
> !
>
>
>
> Philip G. Virnoche CCNA
> Network Engineer - AT&T Wireless
> phone: 425.580.5239
> cell: 206.601.3134
>
> "HAM AND EGGS - A day's work for a chicken; A
> lifetime commitment for a
> pig."
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:41 GMT-3