From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 01:10:10 GMT-3
It's backbone...
--- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Do you have control over the other AS or is it a
> Back Bone router?
>
> MP
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:51 PM
> Subject: Re: BGP aggregation
>
>
> > It only works for peers.The problem is , that we
> > already have specific routes in bgp table.It looks
> > like
> > we have to, tag them somehow before they enter
> > internal processing.
> > Paul
> > --- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > did you try the "summary-only" command at the
> end of
> > > the aggregate-address
> > > statement?
> > >
> > > MP
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:30 PM
> > > Subject: BGP aggregation
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi guy,
> > > > Here it is scenario. R1 is getting external
> routes
> > > > from other AS. R1 is doing aggregation and
> sending
> > > > only aggregate towards internal peers.
> Question is
> > > how
> > > > to prevent R1 from installing specific routes
> into
> > > its
> > > > own routing table.It should have only
> aggregate.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:59:09 GMT-3