RE: LAB 21 BGP solution

From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Fri Nov 02 2007 - 11:44:11 ART


IMHO that would possibly require some extra work or thinking.
Confederations change the entire structure where if you had multiple eBGP
neighbors, it would affect them as well. Local-as affects a per-peer
configuration only which makes it a little simpler.

In this example, both would accomplish the same thing though, just be aware
of the potential difficulties moving forward!

 
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
 
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
 
smorris@ipexpert.com
 
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Biggs, Jeff (M/CIO/BIE)
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:39 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: LAB 21 BGP solution

I see that the solution uses LOCAL-AS NO-PREPEND, but I set it up using
CONFEDERATIONS and got the same result.

R7# show ip bgp

   Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path

*> 172.16.0.0 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i

* 10.10.10.5 100 0 600
i

*> 172.16.1.0/24 10.10.10.6 150 0 600 i

*> 172.16.2.0/24 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i

*> 172.16.3.0/24 10.10.10.6 50 0 600 i

* 172.16.4.0/24 10.10.10.6 100 0 600 i

*> 10.10.10.5 50 0 600
i

*> 192.168.22.0 10.10.10.8 0 0 400 i

r7#

Would this be considered acceptable since there is no mention of not being
able to use confederations or explicit use of local-as?

Jeffrey Biggs

Sr. Network Engineer

USAID

M/CIO/BIE

240-646-5003

jbiggs@usaid.gov <mailto:jbiggs@usaid.gov>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:27 ART