From: Cisco Nuts (cisconuts@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2007 - 18:13:21 ART
Hi Iain:
Thx...for your response...!!
No, pings work perfectly fine....it's a direct connection b/w 2 routers....
The problem was that the same intf. was being used for the direct fr
connection as well as for switching dlci's...
Something that I had never done before...Just tried it to see if it would
work, since I was running short on connections.....it does work but BGP does
not come up...something to do with BGP's internal mechanism :-)
I wonder if other folks have actually tried it....
Cheers !!!
> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 18:02:47 -0500
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> To: cisco@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: "new" BGP error msg...!!! [7:127846]
>
> Hi cisco_nuts,
>
> Ignoring the message for a second, what does ping tell you? If ping works
> the next most obvious questions are is this iBGP or eBGP? Are the AS
numbers
> (and neighbor statements) correct? Are they advertised correctly (if using
> loopback addresses rather than interface adresses) and (for eBGP) is the
> address literally the next hop - or have you defined max-hops? What about
> access-lists ... could you be blocking the port?
>
> I'm guessing that the "calculation" is probably nonsense as it would just
> seem to be a TCP timeout. Regardless, I'd still go back to ping anyway as
> that way you can confirm it for yourself ... seeing is believing !! :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:29 ART