From: Jim Terry (jtixthus@attbi.com)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:50:38 GMT-3
Thanks for the response but I am still confused. So,
am I correct in saying, even though the loopback on the remote AS is in my
IP and BGP tables if I dont have a static for it I cannot get to it?
In this case does the no sync command destroys the validity of the IP table?
Would I have to redistribute the static into BGP or IGP?
Thanks,
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter van Oene" <pvo@usermail.com>
To: "Jim Terry" <jtixthus@attbi.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: BGP: no sync vs. redistribution
> At 09:18 AM 11/1/2002 -0800, Jim Terry wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I have a theoretical question. When I am using no sync in the BGP
process
> >are there still times that I must redistribute the IGP into the BGP
process
> >in order to route to another AS where I am not running an IGP between the
> >two ASs?
>
> It is highly abnormal to run an IGP between AS's. With the exception of
> multihop EBGP where static routes might be used, the AS to AS DMZ usually
> consists of a single link, which is link local to each AS's border router.
>
>
> >For instance, routers A and B are in AS 1 with an IGP and IBGP. Router B
> >has EBGP to C and no IGP from B to C. Router C is in AS 2. I cannot
ping
> >from a loopback on Router B to a loopback on C even though the loopback
is
> >in the BGP and IP routing tables on B. If I do a mutual redistribution
on B
> >in the BGP and IGP processes I am then able to ping.
>
> Likely C can't get back to B.
>
> >Is this correct, or am I just doing something wrong?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >JT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:22:51 GMT-3