From: Ted McDermott (tedmcdermott@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 21:48:42 GMT-3
Josef,
I believe you can get R3 to favor BB3 for AS54 routes
by setting community list on BB3, and having a
route-map on R3 which looks for that community and
applies a higher local-preference for routes received
with that community. The Cisco IOS IP Configuration
Guide for BGP, page IPC-343-344 ("BGP Community with
Route-Maps Example"), has a good example of how you
would do that.
Ted
--- Josef A <josefnet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Kerem,
>
> I have tried your idea sometime ago, but would
> consider it again. It did not
> work then, and the reason I thought, was because
> the origin code as a bgp
> attribute is considered below local preference or
> as-path lenght. It cannot
> be used to override those attributes, unless they
> are the same. You can also
> verify by labbing it up.
>
> Thanks
> Josef
>
> On 12/2/05, kerem.gursu@turkcell.com.tr
> <kerem.gursu@turkcell.com.tr> wrote:
> >
> > How about setting the origin code of the routes of
> BB3 which are learned
> > via iBGP from BB1 to egp ?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > El ayachi HADEK
> > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:54 AM
> > To: blodwick; 'Josef A'; 'Group Study'
> > Subject: RE: A bgp question
> >
> > I think this is a good idea:
> > in R6 and R5, use BGP Conditional Advertisement
> with, for example, the
> > "match ip route-source" (=R3's IP address) option
> of the
> > "non-exist-map".
> > Please, can you test it and let us now.
> >
> > Are you allowed to use floating static routes?
> >
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]De la part de
> > blodwick
> > Envoyi : Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:53 PM
> > A : 'Josef A'; 'Group Study'
> > Objet : RE: A bgp question
> >
> >
> > 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