Hi!

No, actually they are directly connected, so I do not know, why there is a multihop output. Perhaps somehow he thinks to be not directly connected and that is the problem?

Both routers are J6350.

Regards,

Matthias

Nilesh Khambal schrieb:
Hi Matthias,

Are these peers established over a directly connected IPs or is this an
indirect session?

The session shows multihop on both routers from the show output provided
below.
What is the router platform on both sides?

Thanks,
Nilesh

On 9/8/09 1:25 AM, "Matthias Gelbhardt" <matth...@commy.de> wrote:

Hi!

That is the doc I have used for configuring.

Both routers are Juniper routers over a Laver 2 Link directly connected.
  One router is 9.3R2.8 The other 9.4R2.9.

Regards,

Matthias

Nilesh Khambal schrieb:
Hi Matthias,

What JUNOS version are you running on this router? Is other end router also
a Juniper router? Are both peers directly connected or is this a multihop
session?

Try this doc link see if it can help.

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos85/swconfig85-routing/id
-13279139.html#id-13279139

Thanks,
Nilesh.



On 9/8/09 12:53 AM, "Matthias Gelbhardt" <matth...@commy.de> wrote:

Has no one an idea? It seems, that I am really stuck here. Do I have to
activate something on the other side (hence the AdminDown status?)

Regards,

Matthias

Matthias Gelbhardt schrieb:
Hello David,

great tip. Unfortunatly BFD for BGP - though detailed documented - has
no examples flying around. Perhaps I am missing something here.

I have two routers connected via iBGP. I have tried to make the
configuration rather simple (only the important parts, BGP session is up
and running):

This is the same on both sides (change in the IP-addresses of course)

protocols bgp {
    group internal {
    type internal;
    neighbor 91.190.xxx.xxx {
        local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx;
        bfd-liveness-detection {
            minimum-interval 1000;
            multiplier 3;
        }
    }
}

Router A:
show bfd session extensive
                                                  Detect   Transmit
Address                  State     Interface      Time     Interval
Multiplier
91.190.xxx.xxx           Init                     3.000     1.000  3
 Client BGP, TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
 Session down time 00:00:04
 Local diagnostic CtlExpire, remote diagnostic None
 Remote state Down, version 1
 Min async interval 1.000, min slow interval 1.000
 Adaptive async TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
 Local min TX interval 1.000, minimum RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
 Remote min TX interval 1.000, min RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
 Local discriminator 1, remote discriminator 1
 Echo mode disabled/inactive, no-absorb, no-refresh, update-adj
 Multi-hop, min-recv-TTL 0, route table 0, local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx

1 sessions, 1 clients
Cumulative transmit rate 1.0 pps, cumulative receive rate 1.0 pps

Router B:
show bfd session extensive
                                                  Detect   Transmit
Address                  State     Interface      Time     Interval
Multiplier
91.190.xxx.xxx           Down                     0.000     1.000  3
 Client BGP, TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None
 Remote state AdminDown, version 1
 Min async interval 1.000, min slow interval 1.000
 Adaptive async TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
 Local min TX interval 1.000, minimum RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
 Remote min TX interval 0.000, min RX interval 0.000, multiplier 0
 Local discriminator 1, remote discriminator 0
 Echo mode disabled/inactive, no-absorb, no-refresh
 Multi-hop route table 0, local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx

1 sessions, 1 clients
Cumulative transmit rate 1.0 pps, cumulative receive rate 0.0 pps

I see the diagnostic on router A but do not understand it. I thought the
minimum-interval might be too low, so I set it up to a thousand.

Regards,

Matthias


David Ball schrieb:
  There are likely several answers to that, all dependant on your
topology and protocol use. But, a good place to start would be BFD
(bidirectional forwarding detection).  Juniper has decent support for
it working with other protocols (OSPF, ISIS, BGP, RIP), notifying them
that something may be wrong, allowing them to then make a decision
(support may differ from protocol to protocol).  That may be a good
start point.

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos95/swconfig-routing/sw
co
nfig-routing-IX.html#B


David B


2009/9/6 Matthias Gelbhardt <matth...@commy.de>:
Hi!

I wonder what the best practices for optimized switchovers would be?
I mean
fast comprehension of failed BGP connections? A fibre cut or
something like
that, how can I be sure, that my routers are detecting the failed
session as
soon as possible? What would be the best practices fpr that?

Regards,

Matthias
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Reply via email to