From: Mohamed.N (mohamed_n@sifycorp.com)
Date: Tue Jun 27 2006 - 16:23:53 ART
Thanks a lot, i was facing this RIB failure problem and got great
suggestions in the right time
-Mohamed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Cappuccio" <cvictor@protokolgroup.com>
To: "'Mohamed.N'" <mohamed_n@sifycorp.com>; "'D.H. Williams'"
<draythw@gmail.com>; "'Skinner, Stephen'" <Stephen.Skinner@rbs.co.uk>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 12:45 AM
Subject: RE: RIB failure in BGP
>
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK there are 2 kinds of Rib Failure in BGP,
> The one with a Higher Administrative Distance
> The one with a next-hop Mismatch
>
> You can see this by issuing a show ip bgp rib-failure
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122s/122snwft/re
> lease/122s25/fs_sbair.htm
>
> And IMHO the difference is that you can announce your Prefix in your local
> IGP Domain and also have BGP to announce this prefix to other AS,
> Since iBGP has an Administrative Distance of 200, then all other IGP would
> win in the selection of the route.
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/21.html
>
> Victor.
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] En nombre de
> Mohamed.N
> Enviado el: Martes, 27 de Junio de 2006 02:37 p.m.
> Para: D.H. Williams; Skinner, Stephen
> CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Asunto: Re: RIB failure in BGP
>
> then i wonder what is the diff between a normal route prefix and a RIB
> failed route prefix in BGP table!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.H. Williams" <draythw@gmail.com>
> To: "Skinner, Stephen" <Stephen.Skinner@rbs.co.uk>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: RIB failure in BGP
>
>
> > Keep in mind, with the bgp suppress-inactive command, you will still see
> the
> > advertised network in the example I showed you, because it is still in
the
> > RIB table...
> >
> > On 6/27/06, Skinner, Stephen <Stephen.Skinner@rbs.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > guys,
> > >
> > > here is one for you.
> > >
> > > I have trawled the archive`s and have found conflicting arguments.
> > >
> > > RIB - failure in BGP.
> > >
> > > this can happens because there is a better route to the network
> advertised
> > > by igp/static in IP routing table already .
> > > there are other thing aswell but i am just interested in this.
> > >
> > > Does the BGP router advertise those RIB-Failed routes along with its
> other
> > > routes to its BGP peers.
> > >
> > > Cisco Doc NO
> > > GS peps YES
> > >
> > > does anyone have any experience in this .
> > >
> > > i am thinking if the route is in BGP but not the IP routing table, it
is
> > > still a valid route, and should therefore be advertised to other BGP
> > > peers ?
> > >
> > > am i wrong ?
> > >
> > > TIA
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No. 90312.
> > > Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB
> > >
> > > Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
> > >
> > > This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only.
> If
> > > the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please
> return
> > > the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the
message
> from
> > > your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Royal
> Bank
> > > of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for changes made to
this
> > > message after it was sent.
> > >
> > > Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> > > viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> onward
> > > transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will
> not
> > > adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
> The
> > > Royal Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should
carry
> out
> > > such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:33 ART