From: Curt Girardin (curt.girardin@chicos.com)
Date: Tue Oct 03 2006 - 22:05:58 ART
Chris,
Maybe I'm missing something here, but your tunnel IP addresses (using ip
unnumbered) would be 192.168.1.1 on R1, and 172.16.1.1 on R3.
Shouldn't the tunnel IP addresses be in the same subnet?
Thanks,
Curt
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Broadway
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 6:13 PM
To: swm@emanon.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Subject: Re: ibgp tunnel sample config needed
Brian and Scott,
I think the main confusion I am having is the neighbor statement in BGP.
R1 (bgp)--------R2 (Non bgp)-------R3(BGP)
tunnel====================tunnel
The Tunnel config on R1 would look something like this:
R1
tunnel 1
ip unnumbered eth 0/1 (R2 facing interface)
tunnel source 192.168.1.1 (R2 facing interface) tunnel destination
172.168.1.1 (R2 facing interface on R3)
R3
tunnel 1
ip unnumbered eth 0/1 (R2 facing interface)
tunnel source 172.168.1.1 (R2 facing interface) tunnel destination
192.168.1.1 (R2 facing interface on R1)
There is ospf runing on R1, R2 and R3. R1 can reach R3 and vice verse.
The
tunnel comes up and I can send traffic from R1 to a loop interface on R3
using static routes.
I am messing up on the BGP configuration. If I use the e0/1 interfaces
on
R1 and R3 as the neighbor statements, it will use the route learned
through
ospf instead of the tunnels to form the adjacency. Am I using the
correct
interfaces for neighbors and tunnels? If so, How do I force the
neighbor
adjacency to form through tunnels?
-Broadway
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:04 ART