From: Paul (p_chopin@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 19:51:49 GMT-3
I tried archives , but they are down.It's not best
path
selection criteria, this synch problem. And it is
really interesting one.Those details will get you
during the lab.
Sincerely Paul
--- steven.j.nelson@bt.com wrote:
> Paul
>
> This has been documented to the nth degree in this
> group. See Pete Oene's
> posts for more info or check out CCO fro the BGP
> best path selection
> criteria, it is in the 1st or 2nd paragraph of that
> document, best download
> the PDF.
>
> I have it of you can't find it.
>
> HTH
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul [mailto:p_chopin@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2002 22:06
> To: Michael Popovich
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: BGP question
>
>
> I'll send you confgis. I just hard coded routers id
> for both ospf anf bgp(they were diffrent on R1) new
> thing happened. Now R2 shows 200.200.201.0/24 as
> synchronize and pushes route to R3, but .. R3 shows
> route in BGP table as not synch. I rebooted all the
> routers and no change.
> --- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > I understand. I was just curious by that because
> it
> > is technically incorrect
> > for OSPF.
> >
> > Make sure the Router ID's are the same of both BGP
> > and OSPF. If you could
> > email me router configs that would help too.
> >
> > This is an odd one and I don't quite see the whole
> > picture.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > MP
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: BGP question
> >
> >
> > > From ospf looback. Doesn't make any difference
> if
> > I
> > > remove statement under router ospf and only use
> > > redistribute connected
> > > --- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
> > > > Where is the /32 route coming from?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: "Michael Popovich" <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: BGP question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > R2#sh ip route
> > > > > 200.200.201.0/24 is variably subnetted,
> 2
> > > > > subnets, 2 masks
> > > > > O 200.200.201.1/32 [110/49] via
> > 135.5.34.6,
> > > > > 14:06:46, Serial0/0.1
> > > > > O E2 200.200.201.0/24 [110/20] via
> > 135.5.42.2,
> > > > > 14:06:36, TokenRing0/0
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Michael Popovich <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > What does your routing table look like on
> > R2?
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > To: "Michael Popovich"
> > <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:04 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: BGP question
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > R2#sh ip bgp 200.200.201.0
> > > > > > > BGP routing table entry for
> > 200.200.201.0/24,
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > 0
> > > > > > > Paths: (1 available, no best path)
> > > > > > > Not advertised to any peer
> > > > > > > Local, (Received from a RR-client)
> > > > > > > 135.5.6.6 (metric 49) from 135.5.6.6
> > > > > > > (200.200.201.1)
> > > > > > > Origin incomplete, metric 0,
> > localpref
> > > > 100,
> > > > > > > valid, internal, not synchroni
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- Michael Popovich
> > <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > What is the output of "show ip bgp
> > > > > > 200.200.200.0" on
> > > > > > > > R2?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > MP
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > To: "Michael Popovich"
> > > > <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:57 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: BGP question
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No , it isn't. The router is
> > > > > > > > 200.200.200.0/24.Really
> > > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > --- Michael Popovich
> > > > <m.popovich@mchsi.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Remember that BGP by default
> > summarizes.
> > > > > > Check
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > make sure that the route
> > > > > > > > > > in the BGP table isn't a
> summarized
> > > > route of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > in the routing table.
> > > > > > > > > > If it is, BGP doesn't consider
> that
> > a
> > > > match.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MP
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Paul" <p_chopin@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:13
> PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: BGP question
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm doing simple lab, and I
> can't
> > > > figure
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > is it
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > not working.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've got 3 routers in the same
> > > > > > > > AS:R1---R2----R3.
> > > > > > > > > > > Router R2 is route
> > > > > > reflector.Synchronization
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > on all of them.All of them run
> > ospf as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm redistributing loopback on
> R1
> > into
> > > > BGP
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > OSPF
> > > > > > > > > > > through redistribute connected
> > > > .According
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BGP I
> > > > > > > > > > > should have this loopback in BGP
> > on
> > > > all 3
> > > > > > > > routers.
> > > > > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > > > > I can see this route in BGP only
> > on
> > > > R2,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > synchronized, which is strange
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > network
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:22 GMT-3