From: Mas Kato (tealp729@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jun 10 2001 - 16:25:37 GMT-3
But the first thing that is evaluated is next-hop reachability. Try
doing a 'sh ip bgp 133.1.22.0' and see if it reveals any clues as to why
the route isn't considered 'best.'
Mas
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Cheong Kok Yong
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:10 AM
To: Ccielab (E-mail)
Subject: bgp table
hi,
any idea why the route for 133.1.22.0/27 and 133.1.30.0/25 is prefferred
over EBGP than the i, since the metric is preferred first then EBGP &
IBGP
selection criteria.
am I missing something ?
Cheong
r7#sh ip bgp
BGP table version is 17, local router ID is 150.100.1.253
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
internal
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight
Path
*> 133.1.1.0/24 150.100.1.1 0
0
1 i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.2.0/24 150.100.1.1 2297856 0
1 i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.3.0/24 150.100.1.1 2425856 0
1 i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.4.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
* i 150.100.2.1 0 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.5.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
*> 133.1.6.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
*> 133.1.21.0/24 150.100.1.1 0 0
1
i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.22.0/27 150.100.1.1 2185984 0 1
i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.30.0/25 150.100.1.1 2195456 0 1
i
* i 150.100.2.1 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.40.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
* i 150.100.2.1 0 100
0 1 i
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight
Path
*> 133.1.50.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
*> 133.1.56.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
*> 133.1.60.0/24 150.100.1.1
0
1 i
*> 133.1.100.0/24 150.100.1.1 0
1
i
* i 150.100.2.1 0 100
0 1 i
*> 133.1.200.0/24 150.100.1.1 0
1
i
*> 200.200.200.0 150.100.1.1 0
1
i
r7#
**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 - 10:31:21 GMT-3