From: Dishan Gamage (dishanlg@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 13:06:09 ART
Hi Alexei
It works now,,,,,,,,,,,,,tks alot
Dishan
R5#sh ip bgp
BGP table version is 22, local router ID is 110.90.5.5
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
internal,
r RIB-failure, S Stale
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
*>i9.9.9.0/24 110.90.4.4 0 100 0 i
*>i172.16.1.0/24 110.90.2.2 0 100 0 111 i
*>i172.16.2.0/24 110.90.2.2 0 100 0 111 i
*>i172.16.3.0/24 110.90.2.2 0 100 0 111 i
*>i172.16.4.0/24 110.90.2.2 0 100 0 111 i
R5#
On 1/3/07, Alexei Monastyrnyi <alexeim@orcsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> oops, messed up.. meant to say they are not best, typed "valid"
> instead.... sorry
>
> on 1/3/2007 4:57 PM Alexei Monastyrnyi wrote:
> > yes, alot
> > prefixes are not valid, please check if R4 knows path back to
> > originating router, otherwise next-hop-self on R2 would be a workaround
> >
> > BGP won't advertise routes it doesn't know how to reach
> >
> > HTH
> > A.
> >
> > on 1/3/2007 4:34 PM Dishan Gamage wrote:
> >> Hi Alexei
> >>
> >> Does this give up any clue ??
> >>
> >>
> >> R4#sh ip bgp
> >> BGP table version is 2, local router ID is 110.90.4.4
> >> Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
> >> internal,
> >> r RIB-failure, S Stale
> >> Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
> >>
> >> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> >> *> 9.9.9.0/24 0.0.0.0 0 32768 i
> >> * i172.16.1.0/24 110.99.12.1 0 100 0 111 i
> >> * i172.16.2.0/24 110.99.12.1 0 100 0 111 i
> >> * i172.16.3.0/24 110.99.12.1 0 100 0 111 i
> >> * i172.16.4.0/24 110.99.12.1 0 100 0 111 i
> >> R4#sh ip bgp 172.16.1.0 ?
> >> A.B.C.D Network mask
> >> | Output modifiers
> >> <cr>
> >>
> >> R4#sh ip bgp 172.16.1.0
> >> BGP routing table entry for 172.16.1.0/24, version 0
> >> Paths: (1 available, no best path)
> >> Not advertised to any peer
> >> 111, (Received from a RR-client)
> >> 110.99.12.1 (inaccessible) from 110.90.2.2 (110.90.2.2)
> >> Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal
> >> R4#
> >>
> >> On 1/3/07, Alexei Monastyrnyi <alexeim@orcsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi.
> >>> Could you check if R4 recognizes prefixes from R2 as valid.
> >>>
> >>> Yep, some show output would be handy to have.
> >>>
> >>> A.
> >>>
> >>> on 1/3/2007 3:02 PM Dishan Gamage wrote:
> >>> > Hi Group
> >>> >
> >>> > I hav followin config
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. R1(AS111) --------> R2(AS112)----> (ebgp)
> >>> >
> >>> > 2. R1 injects four loopback addresses..(172.16.1.0 - 172.16.4.0)
> >>> to BGP
> >>> >
> >>> > 3. R2 receives the four loopback address (sh ip bgp is ok!) (R2 is a
> >>> > RR-client in AS112)
> >>> >
> >>> > 4. R4 which is the only RR in AS112 is also receiving the four
> >>> loopback
> >>> id's
> >>> > (i.e R2, R5, R6 are clients in AS112)
> >>> >
> >>> > **** ---> my problem is that R5, and R6 are not receiving the
> >>> loopback
> >>> > address of R1. ?? (in the bgp table)
> >>> >
> >>> > but when i create a loopback on R4, it propages to R5, R6 no issue
> >>> ......
> >>> >
> >>> > all my bgp states are establish ...
> >>> >
> >>> > pls help
> >>> >
> >>> > cheers
> >>> > Dishan
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >>> > Subscription information may be found at:
> >>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 08 2007 - 23:46:55 ART