Hello,
Many thanks already for your input!
While working further on the topic, I stubled about one more uncertainty -
maybe some kind soul can provide me with one or two additional answers? :)
> Von: "Leo Vandewoestijne" <b...@unicycle.net>
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Ondrej Filip wrote:
> > On 2.9.2014 23:36, Kai wrote:
> > > desired setup:
> > >
> > > We want to establish a router ('A') announcing two different ASNs
> > > (as1,as2) to it's neighbours. In fact we want to setup three routers A,
> > > B and C, all of them corporately announcing as1 and as2.
> >
> > You cannot have two BGP relations to a single peer. I see two options:
> >
> You will certainly have to do this on different IP's.
> And actually I only do it with different IP's in different netmasks.
>
> I think this config is exactly what's requested.
[...]
> protocol bgp COMPANY1 {
> table as1;
> router id 10.0.1.102;
> local 10.0.1.102 as 1;
> neighbor 10.0.1.101 as 69;
> direct;
> export where proto = "stat_net1";
> }
>
> protocol bgp COMPANY2 {
[...]
In this example, that would supposedly perfectly suit my problem, the "router
id" config param is used _inside_ a "protocol bgp" block. The version of the
"BIRD User's Guide" I have (it doesn't tell it's version, quite new, pdf 49
pages) documents the use of "router id" only _outside_ of "protocol" blocks.
So, (1) should it work to use "router id" inside a "protocol" block (and
different router ids inside different blocks), and (2) is this use of the
"router id" directive officially supported?
(Regarding 1: it apparently does!?)
Best regards, Kai
