From: Heiko Liedtke (heiko.liedtke@gmx.net)
Date: Sat Sep 09 2006 - 03:18:41 ART
Why dont you use an iBGP Session between R1 and R2? There is no need
for R3 to have BGP running.
Heiko
Mohamed Saeed schrieb:
>Hi,
>
>
>
>How could I use GRE tunnels to transit non-BGP speaking routers without
>redistributing the EBGP routes into the AS IGP?
>
>
>
>Assume that the AS consists of three routers; R1, R2 and R3. Each of R1
>and R2 has an EBGP session with other AS. R3 has not BGP configured. Is
>there a way to use a GRE tunnel between R1 and R2 to have reachability
>from R1 to the BGP routes learned from R2 and vice versa without
>redistributing the BGP table into the IGP of the AS?
>
>
>
>I have configured a GRE tunnel between R1 and R2 and I have established
>IBGP peering between them using the tunnel IP address.
>
>
>
>Still I could not have full reachability unless I have disabled
>synchronization and redistributed the BGP into the AS IGP, and I have
>concluded that the tunnel has no added value,
>
>
>
>Would someone help with this?
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Mohamed ..
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:40 ART