From: Godswill Oletu (oletu@inbox.lv)
Date: Thu May 25 2006 - 21:00:05 ART
The 'local-as' community attribute, only work within a privateas, ie the
peer, you are sending that community attribute must be peering with you
using a private-as numbers <AS 64512 - 65535>.
For public-as numbers <AS 1 - 654511>, the bgp community attribute
'no-export' when used, will achieve the same purpose. They are both the
same, the only difference, is that one should be used for private-as and the
other for public-as.
HTH
Godswill Oletu
----- Original Message -----
From: "xprtofnet" <xprtofnet@yahoo.com>
To: "Shamin" <ccie.xpert@gmail.com>; "Cisco certification"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: BGP issue
> by setting the community to "local-as" you are telling
> the router not to advertise this prefix out side your
> own local as.
>
> m2c
>
> --- Shamin <ccie.xpert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am stuck in a problem from the IEWB VER3 LAB-8
> > Task 4.5. The scenario is
> > as follows :
> >
> >
> > BB3 (AS 54)
> > |
> > (EBGP) Eth0/0
> > {174.1.1.1/24}
> > |
> > |
> > R5(AS 65145) ----------- R1(AS
> > 65145 )
> > -----------(EBGP)----------- R3(AS 65038)
> > -----------(EBGP)---- R2(AS 65267)
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |____R4(AS 65145)__|
> >
> >
> >
> > The question states as follows :
> > 1) Advertise 174.1.1.0/24 network into the bgp
> > domain on R1
> > 2) Devices outside of AS 65145 should not have
> > reachability to this
> > network
> > 3) Do not use any access-list or prefix lists
> > to accomplish this.
> >
> > The solution provided is as follows on R1 -
> >
> > R1#
> > router bgp 65145
> > network 174.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
> > route-map LOCAL_AS
> > neighbor 150.1.5.5 send-community
> > !
> > route-map LOCAL_AS permit 10
> > set community local-As
> >
> >
> > Can anyone help me understand the two statements
> > under the router bgp ,
> > especially the network statement. And what does this
> > Local-As
> > community actually do. When i configured this in my
> > lab, I was not able to
> > see the 174.1.1.0/24 network on R3 as required. Why
> > didnt R1 sent the
> > update to R3 because as per above configurations , I
> > dont see any reason for
> > R1 not adverstising 174.1.1.0/24 to R3.
> >
> > Please help me understand the scenario.
> >
> > Regards
> > Shamin
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:22 ART