From: Krucker, Louis (louis.krucker@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 17:48:04 GMT-3
Yes all routers in Area 0. I dont understand what you mean(
with It should only include r3 and R2.
Can you please explain it?
Thanks
Louis
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Oene
To: Krucker, Louis
Sent: 05.04.2002 22:43
Subject: RE: BGP synch (sorry)
Does your ospf topology include all routers? It should only include r3
and
r2.
At 10:39 PM 4/5/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Please have a look at my topology, all routers running
>bgp synch mode.
>
> AS5 AS3 AS3 AS1
>
> R5----R3------R2-----R1
>
>
>All routers running OSPF Area0 but the domain is divided
>in several AS.
>
>R5 Redistribute all ospf routes in bgp. R2 dont install all routes
>as *>, only those are directly connected.
>The remaining bgp routes are shown up with * only.
>
>The big problem here is that R1 receives not all routes due synch
>on R2.
>
>If i enter a static route, the network will synch.
>
>
>Heres my rouing table.
>
>wg1r2#
>wg1r2#sh ip rou
>Codes: C - connected, S - static, I - IGRP, R - RIP, M - mobile, B -
BGP
> D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
> N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
> E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2, E - EGP
> i - IS-IS, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2, ia - IS-IS
inter
>area
> * - candidate default, U - per-user static route, o - ODR
> P - periodic downloaded static route
>
>Gateway of last resort is not set
>
> 129.45.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 12 subnets, 3 masks
>O E2 129.45.80.252/30 [110/3000] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:36,
Serial0/0.100
>O E2 129.45.80.199/32 [110/5000] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:36,
Serial0/0.100
>C 129.45.80.160/30 is directly connected, Serial0/1
>D 129.45.80.104/29 [1/2195456] via 129.45.80.162, 01:16:15,
Serial0/1
>O IA 129.45.80.96/29 [110/84] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:36,
Serial0/0.100
>O E2 129.45.80.88/29 [110/2000] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:36,
Serial0/0.100
>C 129.45.80.80/29 is directly connected, TokenRing0/0
>C 129.45.80.24/29 is directly connected, Ethernet0/0
>O E2 129.45.80.16/30 [110/5000] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:37,
Serial0/0.100
>O E2 129.45.80.12/30 [110/5000] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:37,
Serial0/0.100
>O IA 129.45.80.8/30 [110/74] via 129.45.80.1, 00:06:37,
Serial0/0.100
>C 129.45.80.0/29 is directly connected, Serial0/0.100
>wg1r2#
>wg1r2#
>wg1r2#
>wg1r2#sh ip bgp
>BGP table version is 20, local router ID is 129.45.80.3
>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
>*>i129.45.80.0/29 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.8/30 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.12/30 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.16/30 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>*>i129.45.80.24/29 129.45.80.2 791 100 0 5 ?
>*>i129.45.80.80/29 129.45.80.2 787 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.88/29 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.96/29 129.45.80.2 20 100 0 5 ?
>*>i129.45.80.104/29 129.45.80.2 6000 100 0 5 ?
>*>i129.45.80.160/30 129.45.80.2 6000 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.199/32 129.45.80.2 0 100 0 5 ?
>* i129.45.80.252/30 129.45.80.2 3000 100 0 5 ?
>wg1r2#
>
>regards
>Louis
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter van Oene
>To: Krucker, Louis; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
>Sent: 05.04.2002 22:25
>Subject: Re: BGP synch (sorry)
>
>I believe that you need to match Peer ID's with OSPF advertising
>routers. Is this the case in your topology? Are you reflecting
routes?
>
>At 09:47 PM 4/5/2002 +0200, Krucker, Louis wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I read the ospf/bgp topics this afternoon and set up a small
> >bgp lab with 4 routers.
> >
> >The hole network running ospf, but i conf several AS.
> >I have the same problem my bgp routes dont synch with ospf.
> >
> >The Networks are installed in the roupting table by ospf but
> >bgp dont synch. If i enter a static route with the same Network
> >and nexthop it will work. Router IDs are same on all boxes.
> >Next hop self is configured correct.
> >
> >I try it out with eigrp....no problem everithing works fine.
> >
> >Does somebody have an idea?
> >
> >regards
> >Louis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:56 GMT-3