Re: Weird issue with BGP conditional advertisement

Thanks Marcel.

Team, disregard this issue please and accept my apologies. After
taking a closer look at the config I was able to spot the problem. The
problem was that TOR1 is actually the name of the prefix-list the
route-map is referring to. The name of the route-map is R1UP, so I
needed to change that reference in the neighbor statement and
everything now works as expected.

Thank you anyways.

Regards,

Jorge

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Marcel Lammerse <m.lammerse_at_mac.com> wrote:
> Hi Jorge,
>
> could you send me, or even better, the group, the relevant bgp configuration so that we can replicate this in a lab?
>
> On Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 09:47AM, "Jorge Cortes" <jorge.cortes.cano_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>Hi team,
>>
>>I'v ran into an issue with BGP conditional advertisement which I am
>>not sure about. The scenario is the following. I have conditional
>>advertisement configured as follows:
>>
>>neighbor 155.1.37.7 advertise-map THRU100 non-exist-map TOR1
>>
>>Now route-map THRU100 permits prefixes originated from AS 254
>>route-map TOR1 permits a prefix that is a connected network, and this
>>network has already been advertised in BGP
>>
>>In the beginning everything works fine, the local router is not
>>advertising the prefixes matched by route-map THRU100 since the
>>locally connected network is in the BGP LocRIB (interface is up) to
>>neighbor 155.1.37.7. Now I shutdown the interface that belongs to the
>>network being tracked by route-map TOR1 and everything works as
>>expected, routes matched by route-map THRU100 are now advertised to
>>neighbor 155.1.37.7. Now the issue I'm facing is that once I bring the
>>interface back again, the routes matched by route-map THRU100 are
>>still advertised to neighbor 155.1.37.7, and the output of "show ip
>>bgp neighbor 155.1.37.7" shows the following:
>>
>>Condition-map TOR1, Advertise-map THRU100, status: Advertise
>>
>>And I cannot get it changed to "withdraw" no matter what I try (I've
>>tried tearing down the BGP session on both peers). Any ideas what
>>could be happening here?
>>
>>My thought is, and hopefully I am mistaken here, there could be the
>>possibility I am hitting a DDTS, and actually this thought brings up
>>another question on to the table. What are the probabilities of being
>>hit by some nasty DDTS at the lab? Any experiences?
>>
>>Thanks and regards,
>>
>>Jorge
>>
>>
>>Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Dec 16 2009 - 18:02:22 ART