From: marvin greenlee (marvin@ccbootcamp.com)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 23:10:19 GMT-3
Design Guides and Case Studies do not always actually reflect what is
required to make a section work. In the case of confederation peers, the
router needs to know (at a minimum) about the subASes of the routers that it
is peering with. You can configure other subASes in the list of bgp
confederation peers, but it is not required for a topology to work.
There is often more than one way to complete any given task. Just because
you complete a task differently, doesn't mean that your solution is 'wrong'
as long as you meet the requirements as stated and don't violate any
restrictions.
When dealing with configuration of CCIE lab scenarios, best practices often
go out the window.
Marvin Greenlee, CCIE#12237, CCSI# 30483
Network Learning Inc
marvin@ccbootcamp.com
www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of k c
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:23 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: BGP Confederation [bcc][faked-from][bayes]
Importance: Low
Hi Group,
Here is the test scenario:
BB2(AS2) - R4 (AS65012) - R2 (AS65011) - R5 (AS65011) - R6 (AS65013) -
BB1(AS2)
R4,R2,R5&R6 belongs to AS1
I would like to confirm whether
- Should R4 include AS65013 (R4 has bgp connection to R2, not R6) in " bgp
confederation peers" command?
- Should R2 include AS65013 (no bgp connection between R2 and R6)?
- Should R6 include AS65012?
From Cisco BGP Case Study, the answer is yes. But in CCBootCamp answer, the
ans is No. Which one should be correct?
Thanks.
---------------------------------
7s&~D@1f2D$@&l : 'd(l$M=t$H
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:20 GMT-3