Re: Undocumented iBGP Behavior (Confirmed by Cisco)

From: W. Alan Robertson (warobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Feb 05 2002 - 22:18:33 GMT-3


   
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ouellette, Tim" <tim.ouellette@eds.com>

> The 2nd router that only has 700 routes in it's routing
> table that it learned from it's IBGP still has the other
> 103k routes in it's adj-rib-in from it's ebgp peer right,
> they are just sitting dormant? So if the other router
> somehow lost it's ebgp peer, it'll send withdraws to the
> ibgp peer and the other guy will take over with 104k
> routes correct?

Exactly...

> Could you define what you meant buy "if an iBGP peer
> learns that another iBGP peer already has a better route
> to a specific prefix, it will issue a withdrawl to that
> peer for the prefix(es)."

Let me see if I can articulate that a little better...

  [ eBGP ] [ eBGP ]
  [AS 701] [ AS 1 ]
      | |
  104k| |104K
      | |
      | |
  [ BGP ] [ BGP ]
  [AS "X"] [AS "X"]
      | |
      | <-104K |



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:12 GMT-3