From: blodwick (blodwick@columbus.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 01 2005 - 10:52:49 GMT-3
What about a conditional advertisement to R3 for the prefix?
~ Brian L
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Josef A
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:10 AM
To: Group Study
Subject: Re: A bgp question
Thanks guys for looking into this.
I probably was not very clear on the restrictions:
I want to force R3 to use BB3 as the next-hop for those AS 54 routes it
is
learning from BB1 via ibgp. I do not want to use weight or local
preference,
and would still like to use the ibgp routes via R5 should the link to
BB3
fails.
TIA
Josef
On 11/30/05, Josef A <josefnet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Guys:
>
> Here is a question on bgp next-hop modification.
>
> I have a topology like this:
>
>
> BB3 ------------------ R3
> |
> |
> R5
> |
> |
> BB1------------------- R6
>
>
> BB1 and BB3 are both in AS54.
>
> R3, R5, and R6 are in AS 100.
>
> AS 100 is learning some prefixes from AS54. I have initially set the
local
> preference inbound on R6 so that AS100 will prefer the R6-BB1 link to
reach
> those prefixes from AS54.
>
> Thus R3 is now using BB1 as its next-hop for those prefixes.
>
> My goal now is to override that behavior on R3, and force R3 to make
BB3
> the next-hop for those prefixes, without using WEIGHT. I have tried
using a
> route-map inbound on R3 matching those prefixes and using the set ip
> next-hop A.B.C.D or the set ip next-hop peer-address command . But
this
> is not working.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Your thoughts and/or comments is appreciated
>
> Josef.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 07:07:50 GMT-3