Hi, mmmh maybe I'm wrong but the BGP session between CE-PE only can be eBGP and is necessary one peer directly connected... for iBGP is possible to use loopbacks, etc, etc...
Rgds. On 11/15/07, Adam Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lots of o's in that subject line ... > > I'm trying to set up a BGP session over a PPPoEoA DSL line. This is in the > context of setting up redundant DSL lines to a single provider router. I > control both ends (PE and CE). PE is 7200 NPE 200, IOS 12.3(15b). CE is > 1841, IOS 12.4(17). > > I can't establish the BGP session. Both sides are in active state, but > won't go further. > > The PE ATM interface is configured as IP unnumbered pointing to Loopback > 0. The CE BGP neighbor thus points to the PE Loopback IP address. The PE BGP > neighbor points to the IP address assigned to the CE Dialer (a /32 from the > /23 block on the PE Loopback). > > I saw that the CE was reporting that the external BGP neighbor is not > directly connected, so I issued "neighbor A.B.C.D disable-connected-check" > to no avail. > > I tried specifying the update-source interface on both ends (loopback 0 on > PE, Dialer1 on CE) again to no avail. > > I'm wondering if I have to do something at the neighbor A.B.C.D transport > level, like disabling path-mtu-discovery (this is a wild shot in the dark). > > Has anyone else successfully established BGP over PPPoEoA before? > > If this doesn't work, I'll set up redundancy by tracking objects ... but > that will involve an upgrade of the PE IOS. > > Thanks, > Adam > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > -- Omar E.P.T ----------------- Certified Networking Professionals make better Connections! _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
