From: Jian Gu (guxiaojian@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 25 2006 - 04:26:49 ART
I might be wrong, but in CCIE lab, BGP connectivity is not required, as long
as BGP speaking routers have the right BGP table and routing table, you
should be good.
On 7/24/06, Victor Cappuccio <cvictor@protokolgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys, I know this is a very newbie question, but it keeps spinning in
> my
> head.
>
> Ok this is the dilemma
>
> R1 --- R3 ---- R2
>
> R1-R2-R3 runs any IGP.
>
> R1 and R2 are running BGP in AS 12 and they peer via each other Loopback
> Address (/32 BTW).
>
> So, I need to solve the Non-BGP Transitive Device Problem, I know that I
> can
> use tunnels or maybe redistribute BGP routes at R2 and R1.
>
> But the question is more difficult (for me at least); say that I add
> another
> 2 BGP Devices connected to R3
>
> R5
> .
> .
> R1 ------ R3 ------ R2
> .
> .
> R4
>
> I need to create a full mesh BGP Session between R1; R2; R5; R4 using
> their
> loopbacks Address (/32 BTW).
>
> So creating tunnels here is out of the game, because you can not add extra
> Ip addressing.
>
> Now redistributing the BGP Routes to the current IGP, would NOT help me if
> I
> need to create some AS Policies. - Like Local Preference.
>
> Maybe MPLS would solve the problem (do not know how to configure, and I
> think that would be out of the scope of the CCIE Lab for now)
>
> Any recommendations for this particular problem?
>
> Thanks
> Victor.-
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART