From: Prakash H Somani (pdsccie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 11:52:25 GMT-3
Hi,
Please visit following link
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml
EBGP / IBGP Selection criteria is "7".
regards...Prakash
On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 Ted McDermott wrote :
>I'm listing a BGP and IP route table below for network
>128.213.0.0. It appears that before the BGP
>decision-making process is entered, (i.e. next-hop
>reachable, then weight, then local-preference, etc.)
>the first criteria in the decision-making process is
>whether the route is learned via EBGP or IBGP, because
>of the administrative distance difference. Thus, if
>you have one route learned via EBGP and the other via
>IBGP, it will always take the EBGP, regardless of the
>other BGP parameters. Is that correct?
>
>Note the equal weight, local-preference, and the
>longer as-path of the preferred route.
>
>rtb#sho ip route 128.213.0.0
>Routing entry for 128.213.0.0/16
> Known via "bgp 100", distance 20, metric 0
> Tag 300, type external
> Last update from 192.208.10.5 13:55:00 ago
> Routing Descriptor Blocks:
> * 192.208.10.5, from 192.208.10.5, 13:55:00 ago
> Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
> AS Hops 4
>
>rtb>sho ip bgp 128.213.0.0
>BGP routing table entry for 128.213.0.0/16, version 8
>Paths: (2 available, best #1)
> Advertised to non peer-group peers:
> 203.250.13.41
> 300 500 400 200
> 192.208.10.5 from 192.208.10.5 (192.208.10.174)
> Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external,
>best, ref 2
> 200
> 128.213.63.2 from 203.250.13.41 (203.250.13.41)
> Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid,
>internal, not synchronized, ref 2
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:50 GMT-3