RE: Maximum-path ibgp

You got it, except, route update will not be in BGP table. BGP table will show
the import from only one RR, if you do the "import command" than it will
install all of them in BGP table.

From BGP to RIB, it is a different selection mechanism based on BGP attirbutes
and whether you've iBGP multipath, ibgp unequal cost..etc.

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:45:23 +0530
Subject: Re: Maximum-path ibgp
From: jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com
To: muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com
CC: naman.prep_at_gmail.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com

so you mean if I have topology with PE1 advertising 1.1.1.0/24

PE1 is peering with 4 RR (VPNV4).....Route update will be their in BGP table
from all RR ( 4 RR's).....but I'll install only one ...

If I use import comand it will insall all updates from 4 RR in routing table
<<<<<

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Muzammil Mukhtar
<muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

What tends to happen is let's say you've 4 RR and your P,PE routers imports
routes from them but only one RR gets elected out of the 4 RR but if you want
to import routes from all of these RR than you choose the command Import.

> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:01:34 +0530

> Subject: Re: Maximum-path ibgp
> From: jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com
> To: muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com
> CC: naman.prep_at_gmail.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>
> requisest you to please explain in detail you were talking about RR
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Muzammil Mukhtar <
> muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It will, that's the default behaviour of maximum-path, whatever routes
> > marked as mutlipath in the BGP table will be insterted into the routing
> > table.
> >
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:11:21 +0530
> > > Subject: Re: Maximum-path ibgp
> > > From: jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com
> > > To: muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com
> > > CC: naman.prep_at_gmail.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > but if maximum path is configured and next hop are 2 diffrent PE , so
> > wont
> > > it install both next hops in routing table if MXIMUM-path ibgp is
> > > configured.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Muzammil Mukhtar <
> > > muzammil_mukhtar_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The main purpose of this to improve the convergence time if you've
> > multiple
> > > > route reflectors and the next hop is the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For your setup, it may not make a difference as you are only learning
> > the
> > > > prefix from two PEs, this feature is usually used where you've
multiple
> > > > Route-reflectors where route is only imported from the RR with the
> > lower
> > > > loopback.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...Muhammad
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:14:49 -0700
> > > > > Subject: Maximum-path ibgp
> > > > > From: naman.prep_at_gmail.com
> > > > > To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to understand the difference between normal maximum-path
ibgp
> > and
> > > > > maximum-path ibgp import. Now suppose if a PE is getting a same
route
> > > > from
> > > > 2
> > > > > different PE via a ibgp VPNv4 session.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if maximum-path ibgp is configured in that address-family it
will
> > put
> > > > 2
> > > > > routes in the VRF routing table. So what difference will it make if
i
> > > > > configure import keyword along with this command.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Check your Hotmail from your phone.
> > > > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9712957
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> > > >
> > > >
Received on Wed Mar 31 2010 - 17:18:32 ART