From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 28 2002 - 10:36:02 GMT-3
Think the below msg got caught by the spam filter? I suppose you need to
include a bunch of text before posting a few links. Hopefully this one
passes :)
Pete
>Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:51:09 -0500
>To: tsabry@slb.com, cisco@groupstudy.com
>From: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>Subject: RE: BGP - Synchronization
>
>Sure,
>
>First two are short and sweet and described the typical relationship.
>
>http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00078.html
>http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00081.html
>
>Longer answer i posted sometime back
>
>http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200201/msg00006.html
>
>At 08:39 PM 3/27/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>>Yes riddles indeed, but I can't find a resolution! If there's a simple
>>answer will you please be kind and just tell me about it? Is it to:
>>
>>1. use confederations instead of reflectors
>>2. redistribute bgp into ospf and vice versa
>>3. either of the above
>>4. or none of the above?
>>
>>Thanks for your help :)
>>Tarek
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>>Peter van Oene
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:31 PM
>>To: Tarek Sabry; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: Re: BGP - Synchronization
>>
>>
>>The archives are riddled with discussion on this topic. Much of it very
>>recent (last 2-3 months if I recall)
>>
>>
>>At 04:06 PM 3/27/2002 -0600, Tarek Sabry wrote:
>> >I can get things to work with "no sync", but I was wondering why they are
>> >not otherwise. My understanding is that if the route does exist in the IGP
>> >then it should be OK for advertising. What am I missing?
>> >
>> >Below is an illustration for my case for the 88.0.0.0 network.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >Tarek
>> >
>> >
>> >r3#sh ip bgp
>> >BGP table version is 1, local router ID is 200.0.0.3
>> >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
>> >* i8.8.8.0/24 10.10.0.8 0 100 0 i
>> >* i88.0.0.0 10.10.0.8 0 100 0 i
>> >* i192.168.1.0 10.10.0.8 0 100 0 i
>> >* i192.168.2.0 10.10.0.8 0 100 0 i
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#sh ip route 88.0.0.0 255.0.0.0
>> >Routing entry for 88.0.0.0/8
>> > Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 65, type inter area
>> > Redistributing via ospf 1
>> > Last update from 10.10.0.8 on Serial0.1, 02:10:35 ago
>> > Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>> > * 10.10.0.8, from 10.10.0.8, 02:10:35 ago, via Serial0.1
>> > Route metric is 65, traffic share count is 1
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >r3#sh ip bgp 88.0.0.0
>> >BGP routing table entry for 88.0.0.0/8, version 0
>> >Paths: (1 available, no best path)
>> > Not advertised to any peer
>> > Local, (Received from a RR-client)
>> > 10.10.0.8 (metric 64) from 10.10.0.8 (8.8.8.8)
>> > Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, not
>> >synchronized, ref 2
>> >r3#
>> >r3#
>> >
>> >-----------------------------------------
>> >Tarek Sabry
>> >Senior Network Engineer
>> >Schlumberger Network Solutions
>> >-----------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:24 GMT-3