Look at the name of the command, it sums up where you can use it 'EBGP
multihop'...you can only use this command to reference neighbors in a
different AS than the router originating the command.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: IBGP multihop?
> 1. I did have "update-source" command...
> 2. loopback interfaces are pinging on both routers...
>
> I also wish that it is true that there is no limitation for ibgp
multihop...
>
> However, based on my following test, the only conclusion I came up with is
> that either I missed something that's really obvious or Cisco does not
> support ibgp multihop.
>
> R2:
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.0
> no ip directed-broadcast
>
> router bgp 65001
> no synchronization
> bgp confederation identifier 100
> neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 65001
> neighbor 3.3.3.3 update-source Loopback0
>
> R2#ping 3.3.3.3
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
>
> R2#show ip bgp summ
> BGP router identifier 2.2.2.2, local AS number 65001
> BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1
>
> Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down
> State/PfxRcd
> 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0 0 0 0 never Active
>
> R3:
> interface Loopback0
> ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.0
> no ip directed-broadcast
>
> router bgp 65001
> no synchronization
> bgp confederation identifier 100
> neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 65001
> neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0
>
> R3#ping 2.2.2.2
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2.2.2.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
> !!!!!
>
> "Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 98pha2$fop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98pha2$fop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There is no requirement for IBGP neigbors to be directly connected.
Make
> > sure that you have the routes for all of the intermediate links and the
> > loopbacks in your routing table first.
> >
> > ""Richard Chang"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 98p8ls$chl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98p8ls$chl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > For EBGP, you can use the ebgp-multihop command when the neighbors are
> not
> > > directly-connected. I was just wondering whether there is a similar
> > > work-around that anyone know of for IBGP.
> > >
> > > Basically, I am using loopback interfaces on these two routers and
they
> > have
> > > to go through another hop before hitting each other. I configured IBGP
> on
> > > these two routers with those loopback addresses and found out that the
> BGP
> > > session can't be formed...
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > 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]
