From: Richard Hanks (ccieingroup@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 20:08:49 GMT-3
Hi wright,
I have tested your scenario in the lab environment. The result of the two
seems the same but only a tiny point is different. In the first. after you
used the unsuppressed-map, the specific 192.168.36.0 is still the '>s' but
which could be advertised to the partner. I mean let assume A->B. You ran the
aggregate and unsuppress-map on A. after that, when you 'show ip bgp' on A,
the 192.168.36.0 is still 's', but B now can get it. In the second scenario,
cuz your suppress-map exclude the 192.168.36.0, so when I show ip bgp in the
two routers (A and B), both of the two 192.168.36.0 haven't the suppressed(s)
log on them.
Rgds,
Richard Hanks
----- Original Message -----
From: Wright, Jeremy
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: bgp aggregate suppress question
are these basically accomplishing the same thing (except one is going to a
particular neighbor)?
aggregate address 192.168.32.0 255.255.248.0 summary-only
access-list 1 permit 192.168.36.0
route-map not36 permit 10
match ip address 1
neighbor x.x.x.x unsuppress-map not36
OR:::
aggregate address 192.168.32.0 255.255.248.0 suppress-map not36
access-list 1 permit 192.168.36.0
route-map not36 deny 10
match ip address 1
route-map not36 permit 20
.
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 07:33:40 GMT-3