From: Michael Brooks (michaeljbrooks@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2006 - 17:17:02 GMT-3
Dave,
Yes, I am able to establish an iBGP peering relationship between R2 and R4
but traffic is being blackholed at R3 when R2 tries to reach prefixes
learned from AS300 and R4 is not able to reach prefixes from AS100 as well.
I know I could tunnel BGP across R3, but I am trying to verify the solution
when using the BGP redistribution method.
Michael
On 3/10/06, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com> wrote:
>
> Michael -
>
> You could redistribute into OSPF, but if you have OSPF connectivity
> between R2 and R4, then you should be able to establish a BGP between
> these two routers. Are you able to do that?
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Brooks
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 1:34 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Redistributing BGP ???
>
> All,
>
> R1 (AS100) -->R2(AS200) --> R3(Not running BGP) --> R4 (AS200) --> R5
> (AS300)
>
> R2, R3 and R4 are running OSPF as their IGP and are in BGP as 200. R3
> is
> not running BGP. Would it be a valid solution to redistribute BGP into
> OSPF
> on both R2 and R4 since by default only eBGP learned routes are
> redistributed into IGP? Is there any issues with this type of
> configuration
> ? I shouldn't have to use any as-path acls to avoid routing issues...
> correct ?
>
> Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA,
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 10:07:38 GMT-3