From: Niche (jackyliu419@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 24 2005 - 10:56:21 GMT-3
Hi Anthony,
Just a suggestion,
other than using tunnel as a solution, I think you can also configuring
policy-based routing (at the black-hole router) can also be used as an
alternative in order to avoid BGP<->IGP redistribution. Of course, my
suggestion purely base on the assumption that you are in lab examination
cause there are not many prefix you have to configure for matching and
policy-routing.
Best Regards,
Jacky
On 11/24/05, Anthony Sequeira <terry.francona@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Zouta!
>
> Thanks so much for your input - yeah this is a real dilemma. I have yet to
> figure out a solution.....
>
> Regarding your comment on the Workbook Vendors - if I were a Proctor - I
> would be a consistent reader of vendor workbooks - why? Well - to make
> sure
> I create Lab Tasks that transcend the configurations consistently shown in
> those workbooks. In doing so - I make sure the candidate really
> understands
> the underlying technologies.
>
>
> On 11/24/05, Zouta oxpf <zouta.oxpf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anthony:
> >
> > If your interfaces are all in IGP, then using ip unnumbered to to that
> > interface will recurse to that interface during route-recursion, still
> > blackholing traffic. If your interfaces are not in IGP, and not on same
> > subnet, BGP peering might not come up, a big dillemma.
> >
> > Seems like a good question for the Proctor. He/She might allow the
> > creation of a subnet from within your given address space; If it's not
> > allowed, why do the Workbook vendors do it so often?
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving to the whole of Groupstudy!
> >
> > ZO
> >
> >
> > On 11/23/05, Anthony Sequeira <terry.francona@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to tunnel my iBGP peering from R1 to R4 because R2 is not
> running
> > > BGP. I want to use the loopback 0 interfaces for the peerings. The IGP
> > > in
> > > use is EIGRP and all of the interfaces shown below are running EIGRP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > R1-----4.4.8.0/24-----R2-----4.4.12.0/24-----R4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > R1 lo0 4.4.1.1/24
> > >
> > > R4 lo0 4.4.4.4/24
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have this sample scenario labbed up and I am having a heck of a
> time.
> > > I
> > > have tried the following with no luck:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attempt 1
> > >
> > > R1:
> > >
> > > int tunnel 0
> > >
> > > ip unnumbered lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel source 4.4.8.1
> > >
> > > tunnel destination 4.4.12.4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > R2:
> > >
> > > int tunnel 0
> > >
> > > ip unnumbered lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel source 4.4.12.4
> > >
> > > tunnel destination 4.4.8.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Attempt 2
> > >
> > > R1:
> > >
> > > int tunnel 0
> > >
> > > ip unnumbered lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel source lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > R2:
> > >
> > > int tunnel 0
> > >
> > > ip unnumbered lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel source lo0
> > >
> > > tunnel destination 4.4.1.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You see this is easy and works great if I create a new subnet for
> the
> > > tunnel and use that in my BGP peerings the issue that I am having is
> > > trying to use the loopback addresses for the peerings and still use my
> > > tunnel.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I notice that my tunnel interface does not show up in the routing
> table
> > > when
> > > I am pulling the address from the loopback..I guess this must be why
> my
> > > BGP
> > > is not using it????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone feel like labbing this one up and trying this one? Or is it
> > > something
> > > really simple that I am missing about tunnels?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for you consideration of this e-mail.
> > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3