From: Gregg Malcolm (greggm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 11 2002 - 02:52:11 GMT-3
Nick,
Absolutely..OSPF is running on all 3 tho I've changed the admin dist's to be
higher where needed (I hope). I sure hope I didn't miss anything really
stupid because I know what an eyesore is it to look at config's like these
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Shah" <nshah@connect.com.au>
To: "Gregg Malcolm" <greggm@sbcglobal.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Configuration Question
> Is running an IGP in between these 3 routers an option ??
>
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Malcolm" <greggm@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:52 PM
> Subject: BGP Configuration Question
>
>
> > This is definitely not a real world question, only to help my
> understanding.
> > Here's the scenario :
> >
> > Physical diagram :
> >
> > R7---serial---R6---serial---R9
> > | |
> > 60 <---------- 90 <------ Loopback/Token-ring
Addresses
> >
> >
> > BGP Neighbor Connectivity and AS #'s
> >
> > R6---peers---R7---peers---R9
> > 65256 79 79
> >
> > Test is to ping/trace between the 60 and 90 int's. Must use BGP routing
> for
> > reachabilty between these 3 routers. There are many issues as I see it
> with
> > this config.
> >
> > Here are the IP route tables from the 3 routers:
> >
> > R6
> > C 150.20.60.0/24 is directly connected, Loopback60
> >
> > B 150.20.90.0/24 [20/0] via 150.20.50.7, 01:31:21 <----50.7 is R7
> >
> > R7
> >
> > B 150.20.60.0 255.255.255.0 [20/0] via 150.20.50.6, 01:32:52 <---50.6 is
> R6
> >
> > B 150.20.90.0 255.255.255.0 [200/0] via 150.20.69.9, 01:33:10 <---69.9
is
> R9
> >
> > R9
> >
> > B 150.20.60.0/24 [200/0] via 150.20.50.7, 00:00:09
> >
> > C 150.20.90.0/24 is directly connected, TokenRing0
> >
> > I know the logical solution to this problem is to peer across the
directly
> > connected interface (I.E. R6 should peer with both R7 and R9), but I
don't
> > want to do that. One of the problems I'm seeing is when I try to ping
> from R6
> > to R9. R7 sends and ICMP redirect back to R6 saying that R6 know how to
> get
> > to R9, even tho the route table clearly indicates that the .90 subnet
has
> the
> > correct entries in both R6 and R7. R6 is in fact the path that the
packet
> must
> > take since it has the interface connected to R9. Then of course, R6
sends
> the
> > packet back to R7 again..classic routing loop. BTW - R7 cannot ping R9
> either.
> >
> > Has anyone else experimented with a config like this (or already knows
the
> > solution) ? I ran across it accidentally when I was configuring local
> pref
> > and med.
> >
> > Thanks, Gregg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:05 GMT-3