From: D. Lee (dongweylee1@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 21:41:46 GMT-3
Thank you, and you are right. Why is that??
I knew the internal route from IBGP peer is not synchronized when I checked
it with sho ip bgp x.x.x.x.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mahmud, Yasser" <YMahmud@Solutions.UK.ATT.com>
To: "'D. Lee'" <dongweylee1@attbi.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: Help with Local Preference
> It seems as a synchronization problem, use the <no sync> command on R2
>
> Yasser Mahmud
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Lee [mailto:dongweylee1@attbi.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:08 PM
> To: Cristian Henry H; Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
> Cc: 'Peter van Oene'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Help with Local Preference
>
>
> I do not know what I am missing, but it seems like it always prefers the
> external route in my lab.
> (Even though the internal route with a higher local preference)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cristian Henry H" <chenry@reuna.cl>
> To: "Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)" <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>
> Cc: "'Peter van Oene'" <pvo@usermail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Help with Local Preference
>
>
> > Also it is propaged troughout an Confederation!
> >
> > "Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)" wrote:
> > >
> > > Local pref propogates throughout an AS, so with all things equal it
> should
> > > go thru r2.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Peter van Oene [SMTP:pvo@usermail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:55 PM
> > > > To: Cristian Henry H
> > > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Help with Local Preference
> > > >
> > > > Pref should override this.
> > > >
> > > > At 04:14 PM 10/14/2002 -0300, Cristian Henry H wrote:
> > > > >Externals first, then internals
> > > > >
> > > > >"D. Lee" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > R1 and R2 are IBGP peers within the same AS, and they are both
> EBGP
> > > > peering
> > > > > > with other AS.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A route-map for local preference was created on R2 for a
> destination
> > > > X.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > R1 learned a route to X via his EBGP peer, and it was assigned a
> local
> > > > > > preference 100.
> > > > > > R2 also learned a route to X via his EBGP peer, and it was
> assigned a
> > > > > higher
> > > > > > local-pref 200
> > > > > > because of using the route-map. R2 passed the route with higher
> > > > > local-pref to
> > > > > > R1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From the point of view of R1, the best path to X is through his
> EBGP
> > > > > peer or
> > > > > > R2??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The router will prefer its external route or its internal route
> with
> > > > higher
> > > > > > local preference??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for all the feedback ...
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >Cristian E. Henry
> > > > >REUNA
> > > > >
> > > > >E-mail: chenry@reuna.cl
> > > > >Fono: 56-2-3370336
> >
> > --
> > Cristian E. Henry
> > REUNA
> >
> > E-mail: chenry@reuna.cl
> > Fono: 56-2-3370336
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:47 GMT-3