On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Bradley J. Wilson wrote:
> I agree with everything you say. But it doesn't answer my question. ;-)
> Think in terms of basic routing: how does RTF ping RTD? There's no entry in
> its routing table for 192.68.12.0. As you say, there wouldn't be an IGP
> running between RTF and RTD. No way to ping between them, therefore no BGP
> relationship will be established, even though there's a neighbor statement
> in both routers' configurations. Therefore, a static route would have to be
> in RTF and RTD's config, right?
absolutly. The typical application for ebgp-multihop is load balancing
over parallel serial paths using loopback peering. Since the loopback are
not directly connected, a static route is made to the remote
loopback.....one static route for each path to use. That allows each
router to see the neighbor and bring up the bgp tcp session.
Halabi probably ommited that for breivity......
Brian
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Groupstudy
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: EBGP multihop question
>
>
> There would not be an IGP running between F and D or F and E. F only has a
> neighbor statement to D to allow it to establish a peering relationship with
> it. The neighbor 192.168.12.1 ebgp-multihop statement in F's BGP routing
> process allows this to work. There would not be a 192.168.12.0 network in
> F's routing table unless D has the statement 'network 192.168.12.0' in its
> own BGP routing process allowing it to advertise that network to other As'.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bradley J. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: cisco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Chris Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Neil Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jim Coyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Victor Alba
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jeff Assarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Phil Heller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 10:40 AM
> Subject: EBGP multihop question
>
>
> > Take a look at Halabi (First Edition) p. 300, and riddle me this regarding
> > Figure 10-1:
> >
> > How does network 192.68.12.0 get into RTF's routing table? The EBGP
> session
> > needs to be established before RTF can accept any routes from RTD. But
> how
> > can the session be established before RTF knows how to route packets to
> RTD?
> >
> > The only thing I can think of would be a static route. There really is no
> > feasible way to run an IGP between RTF and that network. However, Halabi
> > doesn't include a static route in his configuration.
> >
> > (And if someone wants to post which page this is in the Second Edition,
> > please do. I'm thinking about buying it, but I'm too cheap at this point.
> > ;-)
> >
> > BJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-----------------------------------------------
I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!!
email me for a quote
Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS Scarlett Parria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
318-222-2638 x 109 318-222-2638 x 101
Netjam, LLC http://www.netjam.net
1401 Oden St.
Suite 18
Shreveport, LA 71104
Fax 318-221-6612
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
