From: michael robertson (michael_w_2ca@xxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 03:00:10 GMT-3
Hi, there,
Thank you for your reply.
Actually I am doing the scenario in page 223 of
Chapter 3 of Jeff's volume II. and I know that by
changing the weight, I can get the righr solution. The
problem is in the book, he supposed to get the other
way around before you change the weight.
I have read it completely ( volume II). It seems OK to
me. But by doing the scenario, you feel different. you
always get different result from the book. I have
tried each single scenario from the very beginning and
I found too much problem. In theory, it's OK.
Like the question I mentioned here, the redistributed
route in router R1 and R3 is condidered local (
redistributed from isis to bgp), thus it's given a
higher weight to 172.16.1.0 which learn by R1 instead
the remote EBGP peer. any explanation for this??
regards
michael
--- fwells12 <fwells12@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Doyle Vol 2 covers your problem exactly. The
> BGP section alone is
> worth the price of the book. Read the whole BGP
> section.
>
>
> ------Original Message -----
> From: "michael robertson" <michael_w_2ca@yahoo.ca>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:49 PM
> Subject: seems that nobody can solve this BGP
> problem?????
>
> > Hi, Group,
> >
> > can anyone out there help me to solve the
> following
> > problem. the scenario is as follows:
> > R4 is in As 400, R5 is in AS 500, R1 R2 and R3 are
> all
> > in the same AS 100. among R1 R2 R3, it's running
> isis
> > or rip ( any IGP).there is no IBGP connection
> between
> > R1 and R3. R6, R7 is in AS 600. amont R4, R5, R6,
> they
> > are running ebgp. R4 and R1, R5 and R3 is running
> > EBGP.
> > R1 and R3 are redistribution point where there are
> > mutual ridistribution between ISIS and bgp.
> >
> > Then the problem happens.network 172.16.1.0 can be
> > learn by R4 with best next hop R1. and R1 has
> route
> > to 172.16.1.0 with best next hop as his own
> connected
> > interface to R2.
> > I guess the reason is that when R1 and R3 learn
> the
> > route from R4 and R5 from ebgp, then it's
> > redistributed to isis, then redistributed back to
> > ebgp.
> > i.e. 172.16.1.0 can propagate to R6--R5--R3 by
> ebgp,
> > then in R3, it's redistributed into ISIS and
> propagate
> > to R2-R1 by ISIS. then in R1, it's redistributed
> to
> > BGP, here, in R1, R1 consider that it's locally
> got
> > the route, thus he give the route 172.16.1.0 a
> weight
> > 32768 which has preference over the route learn
> from
> > R4.
> >
> > That's explain the reason why it got the route
> like
> > that. Am i right? or how Can i solve the problem?
> >
> > as always, any help will be greatly appreciated
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > michael
> >
> > *****************************************
> > network 172.16.1.0
> > R7----R6
> > |
> > |
> > R4-------|--------R5
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > R1------R2--------R3
> >
> > 192.168.1.0
> > ******************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:46:24 GMT-3