RE: BGP synchronization (static route)

From: Jonathan V Hays (jhays@jtan.com)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 00:33:08 GMT-3

• Next message: navaid@rogers.com: "Re: RE: access-list rate-limit with precedence mask"
• Previous message: Alec: "Re: BGP synchronization (static route)"
• Maybe in reply to: Alec: "BGP synchronization (static route)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I have to agree. I just tested it in my lab and a static route seems to
synchronize the BGP route just as well as IGP does. I didn't test the
summary route, but I don't think that would work. I think the routes
must match to sync.

But I was wrong before. Test it and let us know!

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Alec
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 11:13 PM
To: Jonathan V Hays; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: BGP synchronization (static route)

Hi Jon,

Thanks for getting me back.. That's what I think initially... But it
really
works when I tried in my Cisco 6400 NRP running IOS 12.2(2). Wierd ?

BTW, must the same prefix exist in IGP or a summary / default route
exist is
already okay ?

regards,
alec

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan V Hays" <jhays@jtan.com>
To: "'Alec'" <clapun@graduate.hku.hk>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 4:18 AM
Subject: RE: BGP synchronization (static route)

> Alec,
>
> No, a static route is not acceptable to BGP's rules. It has to be an
IGP
> (dynamic routing protocol) such as EIGRP, OSPF, RIP, etc.
>
> HTH,
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Alec
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 9:54 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: BGP synchronization (static route)
>
>
> Hi group,
>
> According to Cisco documentation, if synchronization is enabled, BGP
> peer
> won't select prefix from their IBGP peer if the exact prefix does not
> exist
> in IGP. However, if I configured a static route for the exact prefix,
> it
> will be selected in the BGP table. Isn't that static route not
> considered
> as a kind of IGP ? or the BGP decision behaviour changed in IOS 12.2 ?
>
> regards,
> alec
>
> ***Get your CCIE and a FREE vacation: Shop.GroupStudy.com***
>

• Next message: navaid@rogers.com: "Re: RE: access-list rate-limit with precedence mask"
• Previous message: Alec: "Re: BGP synchronization (static route)"
• Maybe in reply to: Alec: "BGP synchronization (static route)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 07:24:33 GMT-3