From: Sundar Palaniappan (sundarp@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 17 2005 - 13:23:37 GMT-3
Nenad,
I haven't tried this in my lab yet.
I think your situation can probably be satisfied using "exist &
non-exist" map. Shall try to recreate your scenario later if you
haven't figured out by then.
HTH,
Sundar Palaniappan
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:16:19 -0500, nenad pudar <nenad.pudar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> I want to change the bgp next-hop from being the router receiving some
> routes through EBGP (policy will apply to selcted routes) to be the
> other router in network (many hops away)
> This is for purpose of traffic balancing.
> The problem with this that if the new next-hop-router goes down I will
> be blackholing the selected routes from the router in question.
> So am looking for for some kind of policy that will change next-hop
> only if the new-next-hop router is up.
> Simplified config looks like this
>
> route-map NEXT-HOP PERMIT 10
> match as-path 33------ selected routes
> set ip next-hope NEW ROUTER
>
> route-map NEXT-HOP PERMIT 20
>
> neighbor backbone route-map NEXT-HOP out
>
> The only option I see so far is to use something like this
> set ip next-hop ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2
> Now according to some Cisco documents if ADDRESS1 is unreachible it
> will use ADDRESS2
> BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE WORKING
> EVEN IF ADDRESS1 GETS UNREACHEBLE all routers continue to have this
> address as next-hop marked with unaccessible.
>
> If anybody already tried to do this or know for some option I will
> appreciate help
> thanks
> nenad
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 17:56:47 GMT-3