From: Daniel C. Young (danyoung99@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 19 2001 - 00:52:28 GMT-3
Jason is correct. Remember that in order for BGP to send updates to its iBGP
peers, the first rule is that the next-hop address must be reachable. Is it?
Can you ping 192.168.1.221 from Telluride? If not, then that accounts for
the "no valid path" error message that you're receiving. Understand though,
that this still has nothing to do with synchronization at this point.
Regards,
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Jason Gardiner
Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2001 1:10 PM
To: Michael Wong
Cc: Groupstudy - CCIELAB (E-mail)
Subject: Re: BGP synchronisation: Doyle page 175
yYour next hop for the first sh ip bgp sum is 0.0.0.0. It doesn't appear
that the route to the peer is good. If you're using loopbacks as the peer
id, do you have ebgp multihop and update source loopback X in the configs
on both sides?
Thanks,
Jason Gardiner
Supervisor, Engineering Services
Sprint E|Solutions
"You can swim all day in the Sea of Knowledge and
still come out completely dry. Most people do."
- Norton Juster
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Michael Wong wrote:
> BGP gurus ..... I am trying to do the example in Doyle Vol II, page 175
with BGP synchronisation and OSPF.
>
> I have BGP routes going between AS100, AS300 and AS200 ..... however for
some reason the routes from these AS's are not being advertised into AS400.
If I do a debug on the Telluride router I get the output below. I cannot
seem to find what this output means anywhere on the Cisco site. I am
assuming it's got something to do with these routes not being able to be
propagated to Alta.
>
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 0.0.0.0/0
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.1.208/30
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.1.212/30
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.1.216/30
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.1.224/30
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.100.0/24
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.200.0/24
> 00:07:16: BGP(0): no valid path for 192.168.250.0/24
>
> If I look in Alta's BGP routing table, all I see is the following (no
routes from the other AS's), even though it has an adjacency with Telluride
....
>
> BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 192.168.75.1
> 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
> *> 192.168.1.200/30 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
> *> 192.168.50.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
> *> 192.168.75.0 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
>
> Telluride's BGP table has all the routes so I'm assuming that
synchronisation is OK.
>
> BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 192.168.1.206
> 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
> * i0.0.0.0 192.168.1.221 100 0 100 i
> *> 192.168.1.200/30 192.168.1.205 0 0 400 i
> * i192.168.1.212/30 192.168.1.221 0 100 0 300 i
> * i192.168.1.216/30 192.168.1.221 0 100 0 100 i
> *> 192.168.50.0 192.168.1.205 0 0 400 i
> *> 192.168.75.0 192.168.1.205 0 0 400 i
> * i192.168.100.0 192.168.1.221 0 100 0 100 i
> * i192.168.200.0 192.168.1.221 409600 100 0 100 i
> * i192.168.250.0 192.168.1.221 0 100 0 300 i
>
>
> The previous example used the same network without BGP synchronisation and
just using IBGP, this was OK and routes were propagated into AS400.
>
> Help please ....... MW
> **Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**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 - 10:31:53 GMT-3