From: mcaplan.cs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun May 20 2001 - 08:14:21 GMT-3
Mas,
Sorry for the delay on this one. I agree with you that the Loc_RIB referred
to in the RFC is the same as 'sh ip route bgp'.
I'm not too sure about RIB-in though. I think RIB-in is only showed by 'show
ip bgp nei x.x.x.x received'.
'Show ip bgp' shows routes after they have have had the local policy applied
eg changes to local preference.
eg look at this example
show ip bgp ne 192.68.5.2 received-routes
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
* 192.68.10.0 192.68.5.2 0 0 2 i
But look what the BGP table shows, after local policy has been applied; the
local preference has been incremented.
show ip bgp
*> 192.68.10.0 192.68.5.2 0 300 0 2 i
So the BGP table 'sh ip bgp' is a list of candidate routes for the IP
routing table after the normal BGP rules have been applied eg check NEXT HOP
exists, only install the best route based on Local Pref etc.
Thanks for your feed back
Mark
> ----------
> From: Mas Kato[SMTP:tealp729@home.com]
> Sent: Montag, 14. Mai 2001 18:17
> To: mcaplan.cs@clearstream.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Reconciling Cisco BGP with the RFC
>
> Hello,
>
> The local-RIB is the actual routing table - 'show ip route bgp,' whereas
> 'show ip bgp' will display the inbound announcements from all of the
> neighbors (RIB-in). Displaying the RIB-out is as you stated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mas Kato
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> mcaplan.cs@clearstream.com
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 2:05 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Reconciling Cisco BGP with the RFC
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been reading the BGP RFC 1771 and wonder if someone could help me
> reconcile it with Cisco's implementation.
>
> The RFC talks about 3 RIBs.
>
> Adj-RIB-In
> Loc-RIB
> Adj-RIB-out
>
> Can someone confirm that the Loc-RIB is the BGP table shown via "sh ip
> bgp", that the Adj-RIB-in is the table shown via "sh ip bgp ne x.x.x.x
> received-routes" and that the Adj-RIB-out is the table shown via "sh ip
> bgp
> ne x.x.x.x advertised-routes".
>
> I've checked through Halabi and the groupstudy archive, but cant find
> anything to confirm/deny.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> Visit us at http://www.clearstream.com
>
> IMPORTANT MESSAGE
>
> Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clearstream
> International does not
> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
>
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. It is
> intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
> reliance on it, is
> prohibited and may be unlawful. Any views expressed in this e-mail are
> those of the
> individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to
> be the views of
> Clearstream International or of any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.
>
> END OF DISCLAIMER
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:46 GMT-3