From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 02:10:36 GMT-3
No, this is the condition that I am describing. On one side of
your peering you have a default route (0.0.0.0/0), while on the other
side you are doing policy routing. Neither of these routes are longer
matches than zero. You need at least one non-default route in order to
establish this peering session.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Cell: 708-362-1418
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
wwwjjang@chol.com
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:08 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s
query..!!!
Brian !! Thanks for your kind reply.
But, my case is a little different to your reply..
1> R1 has no route to the R3's Lo(3.3.3.3)
=> so, i use a local policy routing to the R3's Lo on R1
=> there is no longer match than zero to the destination(3.3.3.3)
2> R3 has only Default Routing to the R1.
=> 0.0.0.0/0 via R1'e0(2.2.2.1)
=> there is no longer match than zero to the destination(1.1.1.1)
(** i don't config a local policy-routing on R3 **)
By 1> & 2>,
IS the EBGP-session not established between R1 & R3 , inspite of the
Default-Routing in R3 ? => it's right?
So These methods are one of the soutions ??
1> config a static-routing to the R3's Lo(3.3.3.3)
=> There is a longer match than zero to the destination on R1
2> I put the R3's Lo(3.3.3.3) in pre-existing IGP-Domain (OSPF,RIP..)
=> There is a longer match than zero to the destination on R1
---------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
To: <wwwjjang@chol.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!!
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:07:04 -0500
Reply-to: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
In order to establish an EBGP peering session, at least one side
of the link must have a longer match than zero to the destination. A
match longer than zero is defined as is a route with a mask of /1 or
greater. Since policy routing is a completely separate process from the
IP routing table, policy routing on both sides of an EBGP peering
session will not be sufficient to establish a connection.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Cell: 708-362-1418
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
wwwjjang@chol.com
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 9:39 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!!
I config a policy route-map you suggests on R1
but the ebgp-session is not established yet..!!
How can i fix the problem !!
-----------
R1>
-----------
ip local policy route-map POL
access-list 111 ip any host 3.3.3.3
route-map POL permit 10
match ip address 111
set interface 2.2.2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!! MMoniz
Reply to sender to list
From: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <wwwjjang@chol.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!!
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:47:02 -0400
Reply-to: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>
Try not limit your policy from host to host. Try any to host!!
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
wwwjjang@chol.com
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 8:37 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!!
But
If i config a static-routing on R1,(ip route 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255
2.2.2.2),
The EBGP-Session is established !!! (It's trivial !!)
=> Why don't the local-policy route-map configuration oprate well ??
Who know the reason ????
-------------------------------
Thanks for your reply..
But in the Assumtion..
R3 has a D/R to the R1's E0(2.2.2.1)
so, R3 has a route to the R1's L0(1.1.1.1) with a source ip 3.3.3.3
=> If R3 sends a ping to the R1's Lo(1.1.1.1) with a source R3's
Lo(3.3.3.3),
it's OK!!!
Further more, even if i config the local-policy route-map in R3 as you
suggested, the ebgp-session is not established..yet..
How can i fix this problom !!!!
R3>
---- router bgp 1 bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 2 neighbor 1.1.1.1 ebgp-multihop 255 neighbor 1.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0 !ip local policy route-map POL ! access-list 111 permit icmp host 3.3.3.3 host 1.1.1.1 access-list 111 permit tcp host 3.3.3.3 host 1.1.1.1 ! route-map POL permit 10 match ip address 111 set ip next-hop 2.2.2.1
R3#debug ip bgp BGP debugging is on R3# 1d11h: BGP: 1.1.1.1 multihop open delayed 14192ms (no route) **
----------------------------------------------------
>From: wwwjjang@chol.com >Reply-To: wwwjjang@chol.com >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com >Subject: BGP & PBR (Policy Based Routing)'s query..!!! >Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:53:41 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from mc8-f22.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.253.158]) by >mc8-s7.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 4 Aug >2003 06:53:54 -0700 >Received: from lists.groupstudy.com ([207.44.210.9]) by >mc8-f22.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 4 Aug >2003 06:53:54 -0700 >Received: (from sympa@localhost)by lists.groupstudy.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id >h74DroF09405;Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:53:50 -0400 >Received: from groupstudy.com (groupstudy.com [66.220.63.9])by >lists.groupstudy.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h74Drj509378for ; Mon, 4 >Aug 2003 09:53:45 -0400 >Received: from groupstudy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h74DriKp018268GroupStudy Mailer; Mon, 4 Aug >2003 13:53:44 GMT >Received: (from listserver@localhost)by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h74Drica018267GroupStudy Submission Server; Mon, >4 Aug 2003 13:53:44 GMT >Received: from lists.groupstudy.com (lists.groupstudy.com [207.44.210.9]) by >groupstudy.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h74DrfKp018242 GroupStudy >Mailer; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 13:53:41 GMT >Received: (from sympa@localhost) by lists.groupstudy.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id >h74DrfF09375 for ccielab@groupstudy.com; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:53:41 -0400 >X-Message-Info: y838B63spjxdTeo25fa/DX6H3cglIS4RK2ox3uAz7co= >X-Sympa-From: sympa@groupstudy.com >Message-ID: >X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match >Sender: nobody@groupstudy.com >X-Loop: ccielab@groupstudy.com >X-Sequence: 2947 >Errors-to: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com >Precedence: bulk >X-no-archive: yes >List-Id: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >List-Unsubscribe: >List-Post: >List-Owner: >Return-Path: ccielab-owner@groupstudy.com >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2003 13:53:54.0373 (UTC) >FILETIME=[D7CAEF50:01C35A8F] > >This is my diagram > >(L0 1.1.1.1)--R1-(e0 2.2.2.1)--(e0 2.2.2.2)-R3-(L0 3.3.3.3) > | > (s1 4.4.4.1) > >Assumtion> >-R3 has a only D/R to the 2.2.2.1 >-R1 has no routing to the R3's L0 (3.3.3.3) >-R1 has a D/R to the S1(4.4.4.1) >-R1 is in BGP-AS2 >-R3 is in BGP-AS1 > >Question> >-when i config the EBGP between R1 & R2, use loopbacks as the update-source > on both routers R1 & F2 > >------------ >My solution >------------ >i use a Local Policy Based Routing to make a route to the R3's L0(3.3.3.3) > >R1> >--- > >router bgp 2 > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 1 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 ebgp-multihop 255 > neighbor 3.3.3.3 update-source Loopback0 >! > >ip local policy route-map POL >! >access-list 111 permit icmp host 1.1.1.1 host 3.3.3.3 >access-list 111 permit tcp host 1.1.1.1 host 3.3.3.3 >! >route-map POL permit 10 > match ip address 111 > set ip next-hop 2.2.2.2 > >----- >R2 >----- > >router bgp 1 > bgp log-neighbor-changes > neighbor 1.1.1.1 remote-as 2 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 ebgp-multihop 255 > neighbor 1.1.1.1 update-source Loopback0 >! > >==>When i send a ping to the R3's L0(3.3.3.3) with a source ip R1's >Lo(1.1.1.1) > , it's OK !! > but the EBGP-session is not established.. > How should i do ???? > >R1#sh ip bgp summ >BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd >3.3.3.3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 never Active > >R3#sh ip bgp summ >BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > >Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd >1.1.1.1 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 never Active > >Wheh i do "debug ip bgp" on R1..**** >=>R1# 1d02h: BGP: 3.3.3.3 multihop open delayed 17632ms (no route) > >Person who knows the solution...Please Help me!!! > >Thanks..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:53 GMT-3