From: Jason Madsen (madsen.jason@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2008 - 03:51:08 ARST
Hi Stephen,
you mentioned that R2, 3, and 4 are all in AS2, but it appears they're in a
hub and spoke arrangement. are you using route reflection or a
confederation configuration? how are you specifying routes learned by R3 on
R2? i see now why folks don't always answer my questions :-) it's
difficult to provide feedback when there aren't config's and/or output to
look at. if no one provides you with a better answer, you may want to post
some.
Jason
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM, stephen skinner <stephenski@gmail.com>wrote:
> hi jason ,
>
> thanks for your reply
>
> i setup this config last night and noticed that when i set the inbound
> weight of routes from R3 on R2 to 200 ,
>
> R2 set its prefered route to get to AS1 by R3 ( which is the desired
> result)
>
> when i cleared by bgp neibhours on R2 , i noticed that R4 lost all the R2
> routes from its BGP routing table ,
>
> i then unset the weighting on R2 , then cleared the bgp neibhour states,
>
> i treid this setting and unsetting several times and got the same results.
>
> i am just not sure why ??
>
> is R2 now not sending the routes or is R4 discounting these routes ??
>
> or is it just me ???
>
> cheers
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do in this scenario. Weight is
>> locally significant only. It seems as though if you want to choose routes
>> from one path over another by means of using Weight in AS2 you'd want to
>> apply your weight values on R4. A numerically higher weight (more
>> preferred) for the routes learned via either R2 or R3.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, stephen skinner <stephenski@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hello ,
>>> can i ask a quick question please
>>>
>>> My topology
>>>
>>> R1
>>> | |
>>> R2 R3
>>> | |
>>> R4
>>>
>>> R1 is in AS1
>>> R2,R3,R4 are in AS2
>>>
>>> R1 peers to R2 and R3
>>> R2 and R3 peer to R4
>>>
>>> router-id are 1.1.1.1 - 2.2.2.3 - 3.3.3.3 - 4.4.4.4
>>>
>>> R2 is setting all incoming routes from AS 1 with a weight of 100
>>> R3 is setting all incoming routes from AS1 with a weight of 200
>>>
>>> by default R4 sees routes in its BGP table from both R2 and R3
>>>
>>> Question
>>> when i set on R2 the weight of 200 to all incoming routes from R3.
>>> R4 no longer sees any routes in its BGP table from R2.
>>> is this because :-
>>>
>>> A R2 is no longer advetising them because the bgp routing process says
>>> not
>>> to advertise them to R4
>>>
>>> B R4 , the BGP proccess is seeing these routes from R2 with a lower
>>> weight
>>> and decides no tto use them.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> stephen
>>> --
>>> Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
>>> not
>>> sure about the former.
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
> sure about the former.
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:29 ARST