From: Peng Zheng (zpnist@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 16:55:58 GMT-3
I'm still confused.
for 1). Does that mean IGP need to be configured
between R1 and R2? else how R1 can get the route for
2.2.2.0/24?
For 2) Does R1 need the route to 2.2.2.0/24 if policy
routing is used?
I think it does, then how R1 get the route?
--- kasturi cisco <kasturi_cisco@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There are two options:
>
> 1. U can configure arouting protocol ( i guess it
> would be there or
> redistribute connected into the IGP)
>
> 2. how about Policy routing ?
>
>
> Good luck,
> kasturi.
>
>
> >From: Peng Zheng <zpnist@yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: Peng Zheng <zpnist@yahoo.com>
> >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: EBGP Load Balance Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
> 09:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have this config.
> >
> >R1 in AS 100.
> >R2 in AS 200.
> >
> >There are two serial links between them.
> >One on 192.168.1.0/30
> >One on 192.168.2.0/30
> >
> >I want to do load balance on these two links. R1
> has
> >Lo0 with 1.1.1.0/24. R2 has Lo0 with 2.2.2.0/24.
> >
> >I know I need to add ebgp-multi and update-source
> >under BGP config.
> >
> >But I need to config the routes to let R1 and R2
> know
> >how to get each other.
> >
> >I found config with static route like:
> >
> >on R1:
> >
> >ip route 2.2.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.2
> >ip route 2.2.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.2
> >
> >
> >But for LAB, static routes are not allowed. How
> can I
> >implement this config without static route?
> >
> >
> >Thank you for help.
> >
> >Best Wishes,
> >Peng Zheng
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:26 GMT-3