From: Gary Duncanson (gary.duncanson@googlemail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 09:58:55 ARST
That's right.
Suzan,
Theres is a good discussion of backdoor routes and administrative distance
in Halibi if you have a copy pp150 Overlapping Protocols : Backdoors.
Specific eBGP routes can be tagged as backdoor routes which sets the
distance to be the same as iBGP routes. This distance is higher than any IGP
learned route so the IGP route will be preferred.
There is also a configuration example of backdoor in Hutnik and Saterlee.
You can find this book used on amazon for a few dollars and it provides many
useful small scale labs.
Like Nathan says though I don't think backdoor is the way to go. The IGP
routes you have are already preferred to the BGP ones.
Regards
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cielieska Nathan" <ncielieska@gmail.com>
To: "Suzan S." <suzan_ccie@yahoo.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: RIB_failure
> Suzan,
>
> No.. all of these things are happening by design. First off.. its not
> a problem. Unless you have a question in a workbook that wasn't stated.
>
> You want your IGP (EIGRP, RIP, OSPF) to be chosen over IBGP.
> Remember.. IBGP is 200 AD, all of the others are lower, then EBGP is 20.
>
> Now if you need IBGP to be chosen over your IGP then you need to
> change the admin distance. The backdoor command will make your IGP
> more desirable.. this is usually vs. EBGP routes.
>
> The backdoor command allows your IGP to be your primary route.. but
> in case of IGP failure your BGP is a "backdoor" for the network.
>
> Either way, if an IGP is being chosen over BGP you will see the rib-
> failure in the RIB. This is by design because the IGP route is
> currently in use.
>
> Is there a workbook task or question that this is in relation to?
>
> Regards,
> Nate
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Suzan S. wrote:
>
>> Dear Cielieska,
>>
>> But is it recomended to change the administrative distance?
>> Some guys suggested to add the network backdoor command to solve
>> the problem which is better than changing the adminstrative distance.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Suzan
>>
>> Cielieska Nathan <ncielieska@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Suzan,
>>
>> In my experience, this is by design. The RIB failure is blocking BGP
>> from putting this route into the routing table because the IGP with
>> the lower administrative distance has trumped it. If you set the BGP
>> routes lower than the admin distance of the IGP, the BGP router will
>> kick those routes out of RIB-failure state.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nate
>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Suzan S. wrote:
>>
>> > Dears,
>> >
>> > When advertiseing the loopbacks in the bgp , they appear as RIB-
>> > failure routes in the BGP table as they are advertised through the
>> > IGP which has better adminstrative distance. Any one knows how to
>> > solve the problem of these RIB-failure Routes? Do we have to change
>> > the administrative distance for the IGP or BGP ? In some documents
>> > I read that we have to use the command bgp suppress-active under
>> > the router bgp config but it does not work.
>> >
>> > Thank you All
>> >
>> > Suzan
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> > Search.
>> >
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> > _
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>> Search.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:38:00 ARST