From: Shinji Kanehori (kanehori@nttdocomo.co.jp)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 23:37:30 GMT-3
Mail has been behind. You replied.
NAT is a good idea!!
It did not invent.
It is as follows that I think now.
<1> Tunnel is set up between R1 and R3. Next, Policy-routing is performed
between R1 and R3. In this case, a router to carry out PING sets up
Local-policy. (However, since this method can carry only PING, it is not a
not much good method.)
<2>It Tunnel(s), as shown in <1>, and an OSPF process is started by R3, and
it lets OSPF pass to Tunnel.
<3> Policy-routing on R2
<4> MPLS,Since MPLS is conscious only of a Next-hop attribute, it can carry
traffic by R2.
However, since it is about conditions, <1 ><2> cannot be used.
Are they all now?
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Xuan.Sun@Seagate.com
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 8:35 AM
To: Zachary Hinz
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com; kanehori@nttdocomo.co.jp; nobody@groupstudy.com;
tron@huapi.ba.ar
Subject: Re: BGP route by way of no BGP RTR
Another way is to use NAT in R2.
"Zachary Hinz"
<z_hinz@hotmail.c To: tron@huapi.ba.ar,
kanehori@nttdocomo.co.jp
om> cc:
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent by: Subject: Re: BGP route by
way of no BGP RTR
nobody@groupstudy
.com
No Phone Info
Available
06/04/2004 12:31
PM
Please respond to
"Zachary Hinz"
If I understand the scenerio correctly, the problem is R2 doesn't run BGP
so
it can't forward packets to destinations in BGP routes, right? And you
can't redistribute the BGP routes into the IGP.
If this is the case I believe they are wanting you to either policy route
on
R2 or add statics.
Zac
CCIE 12419
----Original Message Follows----
From: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
Reply-To: Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
To: ???? <kanehori@nttdocomo.co.jp>
CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: BGP route by way of no BGP RTR
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:22:50 -0300
Oops, too fast.
R2 would not know external routes...
Run BGP in R2 ?
Do you have the whole picture so we can think alternatives ?
Carlos G Mendioroz wrote:
>And the problem is ?
>R1 knows (via OSPF) how to reach R3 because the link R2-R3 is part of the
>knowledge R2 has and gives to R1.
>Converselly, R3 knows via EIGRP how to reach R1.
>So BGP is up, and all are happy ? (Because R1 and R3 know how to reach
next
>hop)
>
>???? wrote:
>
>>Hi,group
>>
>>I$B!G(Bm in trouble about BGP routing. Scenario is following.
>>
>>
>>R1-----------(ospf)--------R2-----------(eigrp)---------R3
>>BGP<----------------------neighbor------------------>BGP
>>
>>R1,R2:OSPF
>>R2,R3:EIGRP
>>R1,R3:BGP
>>
>>In scenario ,redistributing is prohibited.
>>R2 is not running bgp.
>>If the protocol of between R2 and R3 is ospf,
>>I would use tunneling and igp.but can$B!G(Bt $B!D(B
>>Any idea ?
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:33 GMT-3