sorry to reply to my own post but I got results and I wanted to shared where I got confused. Essentially, I was understanding that if a route was installed into the local ip routing table, that is should be eligible to be advertised by BGP. This is demonstrated in the Hutnick/Saterlee book by the use of static routes, especially to install a summary route. However, all my routes were "directly connected". Is there a difference? They were still in the routing table. Reading further, I discovered the "no synchronization" command. From the book: "no synchronization: This router configuration command disables the synchronization between BGP and IGP. A BGP speaker will not advertise a route to an external neighbor unless the route is local or exists in the IGP routing table. The no synchronization command enables the router to advertise a network route without first having that route present in the IGP routing table". page 520 What I see perhaps is that all routers in my scenario are internal neighbors as opposed to an external neighbor. Also, is a directly connected route "local"? So I'm confused as the book says two things, be in the local routing table or IGP routing table. None of the routes were advertised via IGP but again........ they were "local". And does the rule also pertain to "internal" neighbors? It works now - but I'm not sure I got the "rules" straight yet. Kevin Wigle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Wigle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "cisco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: iBGP > Dear Group, > > Doing BGP stuff in the lab now and I'm having a problem getting iBGP routes > into the routing table. > > After fixing up the problems getting neighbors talking properly, I cannot > see BGP routes. > > All the routes are from loop-backs on 4 routers in a full mesh. > > The routes being advertised are not being advertised by another igp. > > I'm also looking at the Hutnick/Satterlee book which takes you by the hand > but I'm not getting the same results. It states there are 2 conditions to > be met to get routes into the routing table. > > BGP knows about the routes through the network command - condition #1 > > The routes do show up on their local router as "directly connected" and > therefore are in the local ip routing table. - Condition 2 > > All routes show up in all routers in the bgp table on every router. > > I'm now looking at next-hop-self, but so far it didn't seem to help. > > The book's examples end up with a local pref of 0 whereas mine shows 100, > not sure of the significance. > > A colleague mentioned iBGPs high admin distance (200) was keeping the routes > out ...... but the routes are not being advertised by any other means except > iBGP - so....... shouldn't they be there?? > > Anyway, short of posting configs - any quick ideas? (long ones too will be > tried) > > Kevin Wigle > > > > _________________________________ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
