From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Jul 25 2006 - 11:03:50 ART
Victor,
What exactly are you trying to accomplish, IP reachability
between R1, R2, R4, and R5? Are they all in the same AS? Where are the
prefixes coming from?
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Victor Cappuccio
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:00 PM
> To: 'ccielab'
> Subject: Transiting Non-BGP Speaking Devices
>
> 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.-
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:48 ART