From: Ed Lui (edwlui@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2008 - 06:11:24 ARST
Just labbed it up quickly. it doesn't seem like a reliable solution. :-(
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Ed Lui <edwlui@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emil,
>
> router bgp 123
> aggregate-address 172.16.1.1 255.255.255.255 summary-only
> aggregate-address 172.16.3.3 255.255.255.255 summary-only
>
> I believe this will satisfy the requirement.
>
> HTH,
>
> Lui
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM, YourPal <dearprudence28@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > I came across the following BGP scenario:
> >
> > R1, R2, and R3 are in AS 123. They are fully-meshed. R4 is in AS 456. R4
> > peers with R1 and R2.
> >
> > R1 advertises 172.16.1.1/32 into BGP.
> > R2 advertises 172.16.2.2/32 into BGP.
> > R3 advertises 172.16.3.3/32 into BGP.
> >
> > Configure R1 so that R4 prefers R1 to reach 172.16.1.1/32 and
> > 172.16.3.3/32.
> > Route filtering and AS path manipulation are prohibited.
> >
> > The way I see it, I'm left with the option of configuring MED. However
> > since
> > the task restricts the config to be done on only R1, AFAIK there's no
> > way to
> > influence MED because both R1 and R2 will advertise the prefixes to R4
> > with
> > MED=0 (unless I'm allowed to configure a higher MED value on R2).
> >
> > Can't think of a solution. I may be missing something. Appreciate any
> > help.
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > BR,
> > Emil
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:53 ART