From: ying c (bf5tgh1@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 16:18:02 GMT-3
Sandra and Brian have the right answers. local_pref is
not the answer because that's used to influence path
selection going into AS100 from AS200.
Thanks,
Chang
--- Daniel Garrity <ccie@garrityfamily.com> wrote:
> Couldn't you just set the local_pref higher for that
> route on R2?
>
> Something like setup a Route-map on R2 matching the
> network in question
> and setting the local_pref to 300 or something?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ying c [mailto:bf5tgh1@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:00 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: BGP MED alternative
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's one of the question that I wonder one of you
> smart guys may have an answer:
>
> R1------R2-------R3
> \ | |
> \-----R4-------R5
>
> R1 is in AS100, R2 and R4 are in AS200, R1, R2, R4
> are
> running BGP. R2, R4, R3 and R4 are running OSPF. R2
> and R4 both peer with R1 and send full ospf specific
> routes to R1.
>
> The requirement is to have R1 always use R1-R2 link
> as
> the primary route to reach the network between R3
> and
> R5. Normally, we would use MED, AS-PATH or aggregate
> routes to achieve this. However, here's the tricky
> part: you are not allowed to use MEDs and not to
> change the configuration on R1 or R4 to accomplish
> this.
>
> I did it by using a lower metric number when I
> redistribute ospf into bgp in R3, but I think this
> pretty much violated "not to use MEDs" rule. Is
> there
> any other way to solve it?
>
> Thanks,
> Chang
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:49 GMT-3