From: Herve Bruyere (hbruyere@cisco.com)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 14:19:31 GMT-3
I noticed that as well... but this is strange! Why does bgp need a more specific route to the neighbor?
Regards,
rv
Blanco Lam wrote:
> Add a host route on R1 for 44.1.1.1 next hop 172.168.40.2 or
> add a similar host route on R2
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
>>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:11:27 +0100
>>From: "David Terry (ETL)" <David.Terry@etl.ericsson.se>
>>Subject: RE: BGP neighbor
>>To: "'Janto Cin'" <jantocin@datacomm.co.id>
>>Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>
>>Janto,
>>
>>Can you do 2 extended pings each sourcing from the loopback address or R1 and
>
> R2 to the other loopback address ?
>
>>David
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Janto Cin [mailto:jantocin@datacomm.co.id]
>>Sent: 14 February 2003 12:05
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: BGP neighbor
>>
>>
>>Dear All,
>>
>>Please help on my problem below:
>>
>>(lo0)R1(s0)-------------(s0)R2(lo0)
>>
>>R1(lo0): 10.33.1.1/24
>>R1(s0): 173.168.40.1/24
>>R2(s0): 173.168.40.2/24
>>R2(lo0): 44.1.1.1/24
>>
>>R1
>>----
>>ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 173.168.40.2
>>
>>router bgp 1
>>neighbor 44.1.1.1 remote 1
>>neighbor 44.1.1.1 update lo0
>>
>>R2
>>----
>>ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 173.168.40.1
>>
>>router bgp 1
>>neighbor 10.33.1.1 remote 1
>>neighbor 10.33.1.1 update lo0
>>
>>I can ping R1 lo0 from R2 and vice-versa, but why the bgp connection still not
>>established?
>>I turn on debug ip bgp on both routers and get this:
>>on R1
>>--------
>>01:45:46: BGP: 44.1.1.1 multihop open delayed 17789ms (no route)
>>
>>on R2
>>--------
>>01:35:20: BGP: 10.33.1.1 multihop open delayed 11888ms (no route)
>>
>>
>>TIA,
>>Janto
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:06:23 GMT-3