From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 21:47:28 GMT-3
Resent because of list hickup...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Help with Local Preference
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:56:36 -0300
From: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
To: "D. Lee" <dongweylee1@attbi.com>
CC: Cristian Henry H <chenry@reuna.cl>, "Paglia, John
(USPC.PCT.Hopewell)" <JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com>, 'Peter van Oene'
<pvo@usermail.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
References: <CF85A545B0F1D111B3E800805FE6C6650673FC20@edv309.hew.us.ml.c
om> <3DAB3834.5E834D61@reuna.cl> <006201c273ce$2ecbca80$3601a8c0@certsvr>
Is it synchronized ? I mean, the R2 route.
You need to either sync off, or know the route via
your IGP before you will be able to use it.
Take a look at the show ip bgp X (and post it if
you still have problems with this). It should prefer R2.
D. Lee wrote:
> 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
>
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:47 GMT-3