Re: As Transit

From: Donny MATEO (donny.mateo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 09 2002 - 03:26:53 GMT-3

• Next message: Hunt Lee: "Quick Question.... - more help!!!"
• Previous message: Nick Shah: "Re: RTP ACRONYM"
• Maybe in reply to: John White: "As Transit"
• Next in thread: Nick Shah: "Re: As Transit"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

   
Could you please elaborate more on "the other side does not *have* to honor
it" ?
As far as I know ( do correct me if I'm wrong) all IBGP peer would have the
same comunities attribute set and as far as the effect is that the routes
won't be propagated to external peers (EBGP), and that should (again
correct me if I'm wrong) achieve the objective of not advertising route
learned from external peer to other external peer(s).

Thanks.
Donny

                      Hansang Bae

                      <hbae@nyc.rr.com> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com

                      Sent by: cc:

                      nobody@groupstudy Subject: Re: As Transit

                      .com

                      09-07-2002 13:50

                      Please respond to

                      Hansang Bae

At 12:52 PM 7/9/2002 +0800, Donny MATEO wrote:
>How about community no-export when you receive the route
>Something like
>router bgp x
> neighb x.x.x.x route-map SETCOM in
>end
>route-map SETCOM permit 10
> set community no-export
>end

The problem with communities is that the other side does not *have* to
honor it.

I'd go with what others suggested.

hsb

• Next message: Hunt Lee: "Quick Question.... - more help!!!"
• Previous message: Nick Shah: "Re: RTP ACRONYM"
• Maybe in reply to: John White: "As Transit"
• Next in thread: Nick Shah: "Re: As Transit"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:23 GMT-3