From: John Neiberger (neiby@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2001 - 01:32:44 GMT-3
I just set this up and was able to verify it in 12.1(11). Without at least
a specific classfull route in the routing table the neighbors would never
get past ACTIVE. Here is the output from debug ip bgp:
09:24:03: BGP: 172.16.1.1 multihop open delayed 10064ms (no route)
09:24:13: BGP: 172.16.1.1 multihop open delayed 13920ms (no route)
09:24:14: BGP: Import timer expired. Walking from 1 to 1
09:24:27: BGP: 172.16.1.1 multihop open delayed 14560ms (no route)
09:24:29: BGP: Import timer expired. Walking from 1 to 1
09:24:35: BGP: compute bestpath
09:24:41: BGP: 172.16.1.1 multihop open delayed 14720ms (no route)
09:24:44: BGP: Import timer expired. Walking from 1 to 1
09:24:56: BGP: 172.16.1.1 multihop open delayed 10144ms (no route)
On this router I then added a static route to 172.16.0.0 and the neighbors
came up. Very interesting! This definitely falls into the "Good to Know"
category.
Thanks,
John
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 20:02:24 -0500, Matt Smith wrote:
| Hey all,
| I just got done doing some last minute BGP practice scenarios in
preperation
| for my upcoming date with fate on 11/30. At any rate I was making some
quick
| and dirty lab scenarios to test some varios configurations and I found
the
| following
|
| R1 <----->R2<------->R3
|
| R1 is configured with a 0.0.0.0 route to R2 and R3 with a 0.0.0.0 route
to R2
| as well. I pinged from R1 to R3 and communicationed worked fine.
|
| Now I issued router bgp 100 on both R1 and R2 and defined the neigh bor
| statements for iBGP.
|
| The BGP relationship never came up. AS#s were correct on both router
| processes and neighbor statements and the IP addresses were correct as
well.
|
| show ip bgp neighbor reports that neither router has sent or recieved and
BGP
| messages and a deb ip packet verifies that this is true.
|
| What was the culprit? well........... Make a guess then read on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I issued a static route for the specific address of the neighbor on each
| router (R1 and R3) pointing to R2 and the relationship came up.
Apparently
| BGP requires a route in the routing table for the nieghbor address and
will
| not use the 0.0.0.0 route. IP classless enabled on both routers and as I
| stated both routers could ping one another. Has anyone ever read and
| documentation supporting this to be true? I have never seen any rules
| pertaining to this issue so I thouht I would share it with the group.
Just a
| quick tidbit. Hope it helps someone someday.
|
| Luck to All
|
| Matt Smith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 06:45:22 GMT-3