I see what your saying now. All three routers (F,D,E) are running OSPF on
the 192.168.0.0 network! This is a poor scenario because that would never
happen in the real world.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley J. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: cisco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: EBGP multihop question
> 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?
>
>
>
> ----- 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]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
