Re: Advertising local host routes in BGP?

Carlos,
What platform did you test a static route pointing to a host on a
locally connected network?
I'm labbing this on 1841s add get the following:

R1(config)#do ping 1.1.1.5

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 1.1.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/4 ms
R1(config)#ip route 1.1.1.5 255.255.255.255 1.1.1.5
R1(config)#do ping 1.1.1.5
*May 6 15:14:52.925: RT: network 1.0.0.0 is now variably masked
*May 6 15:14:52.925: RT: add 1.1.1.5/32 via 1.1.1.5, static metric [1/0]
*May 6 15:14:52.925: RT: NET-RED 1.1.1.5/32
*May 6 15:14:53.021: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
R1(config)#do ping 1.1.1.5

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 1.1.1.5, timeout is 2 seconds:

*May 6 15:14:54.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:14:54.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop.
*May 6 15:14:56.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:14:56.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:14:56.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop.
*May 6 15:14:58.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:14:58.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:14:58.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop.
*May 6 15:15:00.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:15:00.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:15:00.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop.
*May 6 15:15:02.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:15:02.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop
*May 6 15:15:02.677: RT: recursion error routing 1.1.1.5 - probable
routing loop.
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
> Have you been able to reproduce the issue in a lab environment ?
> Because the statics pointing to the next hop should take care of the CEF
> problem if I understood it...
>
> -Carlos
>
> Jeffrey Pazahanick @ 26/04/2010 17:28 -0300 dixit:
>> The topology is like this:
>>
>> upstream peer upstream peer
>> | |
>> -------------------------------------------
>> | |
>> R1 (1.1.1.2) R2 (1.1.1.3)
>> | g0/0 | g0/0
>> -------------------------------------------
>> |
>> host (1.1.1.5)
>>
>> The issue I had was related to the CEF issue I mentioned when using
>> static routes pointing to an interface, so I need find a different way
>> of advertising host routes into BGP from a local network.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
>>> Would you please repost your original topology and perceived problem ?
>>> I got carried away because of your reference to the CEF issue, but
>>> you have provided not enough info to actually reproduce your situation.
>>>
>>> -Carlos
>
> --
> Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu May 06 2010 - 10:14:35 ART