From: Mohamed Saeed (mohamed_saeed2@rayacorp.com)
Date: Sat Sep 09 2006 - 16:10:24 ART
Hi Briant,
You have given me the point, when I set the next hop to the tunnel
interface (using next-hop-self on R1 and R2), every thing went fine.
I have tried to test why it does work now after setting the next hop to
the tunnel interface.
I have enabled "debug ip packet" on the intermediate router that is not
running bgp (R3) and I have issued ping from one of the IBGP peers (R2)
to a BGP destination behind the other IBGP neighbor (R1).
What should be the packets source and destination as seen by the
intermediate router (R3)?
Could someone help with this?
Regards
Mohamed ...
-----Original Message-----
From: Brant I. Stevens [mailto:branto@branto.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 6:17 AM
To: Mohamed Saeed; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Transiting Non BGP Speaking Devices using Tunnels
What is the next-hop address set to?
On 9/7/06 4:03 PM, "Mohamed Saeed" <mohamed_saeed2@rayacorp.com> wrote:
> 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 ..
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:40 ART