From: HP-France,ex2 ("SANCHEZ-MONGE,ANTONIO)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 06:31:27 GMT-3
Hi,
That's not exactly true. BGP can consider a route as valid even if it's not
in the routing table. In this case, it will be marked as ">" and "r"
(RIB-failure). That means that the prefix is valid but another routing
protocol with a better AD took precedence.
For a route to be considered for aggregation it must be valid (">") but not
necessarily in the routing table.
Cheers,
Ato.
-----Original Message-----
From: boby2kusa [mailto:boby2kusa@hotmail.com]
Sent: sabado, 24 de abril de 2004 20:19
To: Ahmed Mustafa; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: BGP Aggregation Rule
In order for the BGP to consider a route to a particular network viable it
must also be in the routing table, this is where the ">" comes in. If the
172.16.1.0 is not in the routing table the BGP will know about it but it
will not consider it as viable route.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ahmed Mustafa" <ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:07 PM
Subject: BGP Aggregation Rule
> I understand that in order for aggregation to work, one of the more
specific
> routes must be in the BGP routing table, not IP routing table.
>
> I believe it only required in BGP routing table. What happens if the
> more specific route is in the BGP table such as
>
> * 172.16.1.0, without a > sign. Without a greater than sign the route
> is
not
> considered for selection though but will it fulfil the aggregation
> requirements
>
> Regards,
>
> Ahmed
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:55 GMT-3