From: Jason Wydra (jasonwydra@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 18:29:46 GMT-3
No synchronization would only be an issue if I actually had the network in my
BGP table but it wasn't being installed in the main routing table. My problem i
s that I don't even have the network in the bgp table. I fully understand that
IGP needs to be running in order for R1 and R3 to peer via R2. Even without an
IGP running R2 should still tell R1 and R3 about all netwoks it is connected to
that have the corresponding network statement in its config.
I checked for typos in the config and did not find anything.
"Logan, Harold" <loganh@mccfl.edu> wrote: I agree; in most cases an IGP will
provide that connectivity. But disabling synchronization should provide for con
nectivity in a full IBGP environment. Additionally, if Jason adds networks to R
1 that he wants to be propagated to R3 and vice versa with networks from R3 bei
ng advertised to R1, he'll need to add the neighbor next-hop-self command. I've
done scenarios similar to this one, but in those cases I've had the IBGP peers
directly connected to each other, rather than having one router go through ano
ther in order to peer. If disabling synchronization doesn't work, then the only
other all BGP solution I can think of would be to make R2 a route reflector.
I don't think his scenario will qualify as a race state, because BGP was never
depending on an IGP in the first place. Unless I misunderstand Halabi, a race s
tate occurs when BGP has its IGP pulled out from under it. Jason, will you plea
se let us know if putting a no sync on all 3 routers fixes things?
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter van Oene [mailto:pvo@usermail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:52 PM
To: Jason Wydra; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: IBGP HELP??
This is what IGP's are for. Turn up your favorite, advertise link/loopback
addressing and make sure to set update-source loopback0 (assuming you are
peering via loopbacks)
At 11:26 AM 5/6/2002 -0700, Jason Wydra wrote:
>I have AS 3127 with 3 routers. R1 is connected to R2 via Token ring. R2 is
>connected to R3 via Ethernet. R1 and R3 do not have a direct connection.
>They are attempting to peer through R2. R1 and R2 neighbor states are
>active. R2 and R3 neighbor state is active. R1 and R3 neighbor state will
>NOT come up. The network on link between R1 and R2 is 204.156.20.0/30 and
>network between R2 and R3 is 165.40.22.0/23. From R1 I CANNOT ping R3. R1
>has learned a route from BGP to R3. Looking on R3 it has not learned a
>route to R1 (From R2). This is obviously why I cannot ping from R1 to R3
>and this is also why the BGP peer won't come up. Simply adding a static
>route on R3 pointing to R1 solves the problem and my BGP peers comes up.
>My question is why does R2 tell R1 about the 165 network but R2 does not
>tell R3 about the 204 network? Why do I have to add a static to R3? Please
>help!!
>
>Jason Wydra
>
>CCNP,CCDP
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:51 GMT-3