From: Joe Martin (jmartin@capitalpremium.net)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 17:44:22 GMT-3
That would be nice, and I know that's what we do in the real world. But I
can just about guarantee that they are not going to let you turn off sync on
the lab.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Peter van Oene
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 2:01 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Help with Local Preference
You guys _really_ need to turn off sync. You are perpetuating all sorts of
nasty uses for otherwise useful BGP tools like confederations ;-) Not to
mention making me doubt what I thought I knew.
At 09:00 PM 10/14/2002 -0400, Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell) wrote:
>Probably because eBGP routes are accepted by the directly connected eBGP
>peer regardless of synchronization-they just wont propogate to that routers
>iBGP peers.
>
>It accepted the eBGP over the iBGP routes because iBGP routes have to be
>synchronized, and in your case they weren't. You can get around this with
>confederations as well.
>
>John
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: D. Lee [SMTP:dongweylee1@attbi.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:42 PM
> > To: Mahmud, Yasser
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Help with Local Preference
> >
> > 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