Hello all - I may have been working on this too long. Take a look
at the following network.
AS100 iBGP AS100
22.22.22.0 11.11.11.0
R2-173.4.175.19------173.4.175.17-R1 <synchronization turned
192.1.1.2
off on R1 and R2
|
|
| eBGP
|
|
|
192.1.1.1
R3
AS300
|
33.33.33.0
Router3
router bgp 300
network 33.33.33.0 mask 255.255.255.0
neighbor 192.1.1.2 remote-as 100
Router2
router bgp 100
no synchronization
network 22.22.22.0 mask 255.255.255.0
neighbor 173.4.175.17 remote-as 100
neighbor 192.1.1.1 remote-as 300
Router1
router bgp 100
no synchronization
network 11.11.11.0 mask 255.255.255.0
neighbor 173.4.175.19 remote-as 100
If I do a show ip route on R1 I will get the following information
on the 33.33.33.0 network.
B 33.33.33.0 [200/0] via 192.1.1.1
If I do a ping to 33.33.33.1 (loopback on R3), the ping will fail and
that is
expected. The 192 network is not advertised so R1 does not have a
route to it.
This is my confusion: I was under the impression that routes do not
get installed into routing tables if there is no route for the next-hop
address. Specifically, since R1 does not know how to get to
192.1.1.1, the 33.33.33.0 route should not get installed.
Also take a look at the Cisco Press BSCN study guide -pp 347
to 348. It too seems to indicate that the route, in its example,
should not get installed.
**So why am I seeing the 33.33.33.0 route if I don't have a route
to 192.1.1.1?**
What am I missing here?
Thank you!
Scott Chapin
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
