From: Bowen, Shawn (sbowen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2001 - 20:09:21 GMT-3
True, true. I didn't want to mention that cause I was worried about the
implications of not understanding it:-) It's not usually what was meant to
be done to inject a whole class A into BGP on accident:-) Aggregates also
work nicely for this.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Weber [mailto:itweber@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 4:58 PM
To: Groupstudy; Bowen, Shawn
Subject: RE: BGP no sync and Bootcamp Labs
I just wanted to add to Shawn's statement, as this topic is worthy of
discussion because it is part of understanding the core of what bgp is
about. I just wanted to add that you can also use the classful network
address in your network statement without having to match on a BIT by BIT
basis the only drawback is that everything in your routing table under that
classful prefix ends up getting advertised.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bowen, <mailto:sbowen@neteffectcorp.com> Shawn
To: Groupstudy <mailto:sbowen@neteffectcorp.com>
Sent: 3/4/01 3:59:12 PM
Subject: RE: BGP no sync and Bootcamp Labs
No sync comes in handy when you do not want to have explicit BGP network
statements. BGP will only use your network statement IF and ONLY IF your
BGP network statement coincides with a BIT for BIT match in your interior
routing protocol (forget about no-sync for a second). Now, this is all cool
and dandy unless you are say using EIGRP and it summarizes the networks for
you by default. Then when your BGP statement uses the actual match it will
not match BIT for BIT and will not be included in BGP. No Sync is one way
around this, another is a static route for your network to NULL on the
router you want to inject into BGP. You will then go to the longest match
rule and the NULL route will be ignored and BGP will get to inject it
without no-sync. As long as your interior routing protocol has the route in
its tables, and your BGP network statement matches it BIT for BIT (IP and
MASK) then it will fly.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: crl [ mailto:cisco@crl.fdns.net <mailto:mailto:cisco@crl.fdns.net> ]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 3:15 PM
To: Groupstudy
Subject: BGP no sync and Bootcamp Labs
Just finished my first run through Bootcamp Lab #6. Not a very tough one
anymore if you skip the protocols that are irrelevant to today's lab... To
shake things up a bit, I decided to try to get the BGP configs all working
without using the no sync command (I know that it wasn't outlawed in the
lab.)
Well I had a terrible time of this. I admit, BGP is a weak area for me, and
I likely won't be doing anymore Bootcamp labs until I polish my BGP core
knowledge. Has anyone else done these labs leaving syncronization enabled? I
could get about half my routes into the routing table, but the other half I
just couldn't.
I know it's been brought up before, but if the odds are that the lab is
going to outlaw the "no sync" command, why do so many people turn it on when
doing scenarios?
That's my thought of the day...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:20 GMT-3