From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Sat Sep 29 2007 - 01:52:00 ART
Put a next-hop-self on all peers... then tell me who's preferred. I suspect
an unreachable next-hop is leading to undesired results.
-Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
sakthi somnath
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:10 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: BGP path selection
Hi All,
Could someone please explain the criteria of selection
here. why is 1.1.1.1 not selected since it has a
higher Local preference?
N Next hop reachable
W - highest weight
L - Locally originated route
L - Local Preference Highest
A - Shortest AS Path
O - Origin code I> E > ?
M - Lowest MED
N - Neighbor type EBGP over IBGP
I - smallest IGP metric to Nexthop
R1(1.1.1.1)----
| |
| |
R2 -----|-----R4
| |
| R5--7.7.7.0
R3
|
|
7.7.7.0
- Only R1 and R2 are running IBGP, rest all run ebgp
- R2 does not peer with R5
- 7.7.7.0 is reachable via R3 as well as R5
Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, *
valid, > best, i - internal,r RIB-failure
Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight
Path
* 7.7.7.0/24 161.108.0.5 0 4 3 i
* i 1.1.1.1 100 0 4 3 i
*> 132.108.4.3 0 2 3 i
Thanks,
Sakthi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 06 2007 - 12:01:16 ART