Hi, I had forgotten to ask you a question about ebgp-multihop. Since this issue was raised, this question came back to my mind.
This is about BGP Lab 7 (v9.0). I know you don't have v9.0 anymore, but this should not be too complicated for you. One of the initial tasks was to configure R1 on AS 100 and R2 on AS 200, but peering with R1's loopback. Of course we need to use ebgp-multihop in this case. But while I was expecting to see "ebgp-multihop 2", the actual solution used "ebgp-multihop 3" I tried "ebgp-multihop 2" just to see, but of course it did not work! But I'm not sure why. If they were peering using a Serial Link, then "ebgp-multihop 2" would be OK; I know that. But in this case R1 and R2 are connected through Switch 1 on VLAN 12. Does the Switch count as an additional hop? If that's the case, is it because the Switch is acting as Layer 3 device? What if the switch was a pure Layer 2 device, with no VLAN? Would I still need "ebgp-multihop 3" instead of "ebgp-multihop 2" ? --- On Tue, 6/10/08, Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EBGP Multihop To: "'OSL CCIE Routing and Switching Lab Exam'" <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 3:32 PM #yiv1660475405 DIV { MARGIN:0px;} It's mandatory to have reachability. :) However you choose to do that in order to build your session is between you and your lab requirements! But no reachability = no bgp session! HTH, Scott From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hari Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] EBGP Multihop Hi all, While configuring EBGP Multihop command in BGP , do we need to configure IGP route or static route for that particular neighbor? Is it mandatory to configure IGP route or static route ? Thanks Hari Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Yahoo! Group.
