From: Robert Dubell (bobdu11@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 12 2001 - 15:35:22 GMT-3
You have to specify when redistributing External type 1 and external type 2
from OSPF into BGP
-----Original Message-----
>
>considering the following scenario about BGP and OSPF.
>
>In one AS, there are two routers(R1 and R2) runing IBGP,but with sych is
>turned on. So that means when R1 send BGP update routes to R2, the routes
>will show as best(indicated by ">" in bgp table unless the routes also be
>learned from IGP.
>
>The problem is here, even if R2 learns these routes from OSPF, it doest't
>get ">" in BGP table( it tells that these routes are not synchonized) !
>
>But when they are learned from other IGP protocols (such as IGRP,EIGRP),
>theese routes get into BGP table with ">" successfully.
>
>Does BGP treats OSPF and other IGP differently?
>
>Thanks, V
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Hescock" <bhescock@cisco.com>
>To: "fred couples" <r0uterj0ckey@yahoo.com>
>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:47 AM
>Subject: Re: rip neighbor statement (oops)
>
>
>> correction: I didn't mean to say ipx at the end.
>>
>> fred couples wrote:
>>
>> > There seemed to be a disagreement on using ip rip
>> > neighbor statements and blocking broadcasts so I tried
>> > it out myself. Here's the results:
>> >
>> > - rip v1 and no neighbor statement: sent to
>> > 255.255.255.255
>> > - rip v1 and neighbor statement: sent to
>> > 255.255.255.255 and unicast to the neighbor also
>> > - rip v1 and neighbor and passive-interface: no worky
>> > (technical term of the day)
>> > - rip v2 and no neighbor: sent to 224.0.0.9
>> > - rip v2 and neighbor: sent to 224.0.0.9 and unicast
>> > to neighbor
>> > - rip v2 and neighbor and passive-interface: no worky
>> >
>> > so if the requirement is to turn off ipx traffic being
>> > broadcast out you need to use ripv2, which uses
>> > multicast, not broadcast.
>> >
>> > Fred
>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:13 GMT-3