Hi Gert, > Gert Doering > Sent: 04 June 2015 20:05 > The answer I received in the TAC case (SR 635067397) is that "this is > totally expected behaviour, because the CEF team thinks it needs to > work that way". > > If I do not want load-sharing here, I am supposed to use labelled next-hops, > so router sending prefixes *to* me can steer whether they want to use > the "best-external" path or not. > > To me this sounds like total bullshit... It is indeed! Don't let them get away with that. Backup NH is clearly marked as "backup" in the FIB so it should not be used for load-sharing. And the BGP PIC is supposed to be supported for pure IPv4 -it's all over the documentation (though I've never used it without MPLS in the core).
adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
