From: mcaplan.cs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon May 21 2001 - 04:32:53 GMT-3
Yep, that sounds right to me.
Thanks
Mark
> ----------
> From: Mas Kato[SMTP:tealp729@home.com]
> Sent: Sonntag, 20. Mai 2001 22:53
> To: mcaplan.cs@clearstream.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Reconciling Cisco BGP with the RFC
>
> No problem, Mark. I think I see your point of distinction now.
>
> From RFC-1771:
>
> 3.2a) Adj-RIBs-In: The Adj-RIBs-In store routing information that has
> been learned from inbound UPDATE messages. Their contents represent
> routes that are available as an input to the Decision Process.
>
> It looks like you've illustrated how to display what represents each
> sentence in the above paragraph separately. 'show ip bgp nei x.x.x.x
> received' displays the raw UPDATE from that neighbor (if from an IBGP
> neighbor, attributes such as local preference could already be set),
> while 'show ip bgp' displays the routes as they are ready for the
> multi-step Decision Process for installation into the Loc-RIB (perhaps
> after local attribute manipulation has been performed).
>
> Does that sound about right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mcaplan.cs@clearstream.com [mailto:mcaplan.cs@clearstream.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 4:14 AM
> To: tealp729@home.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Reconciling Cisco BGP with the RFC
>
>
> 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 - 10:30:47 GMT-3