From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 01:22:54 GMT-3
That sounds more like a solution. How about changing
the distance for bgp externals on r1 to 255.Problem is
, that is change for all other external routes.
--- "Christopher E. Miller" <chrimill@cisco.com>
wrote:
> Try to filter the specific routes from coming into
> R1, then enter one of the
> networks under BGP with the network statement and
> advertise the summary only
> to the peers. The network statement should allow you
> the advertise the
> aggregate.
>
> HTH
> CHRIS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Paul
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:52 PM
> To: Michael Popovich
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> 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