>Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3? Probably, yes. Do a show route extensive in few inactive prefix and it will tell you the reason why it is in inactive state.
>What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2 and 3 on our traffic? The tie break will move to the next criteria. http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/reference/general/routing-ptotocols-address-representation.html HTH On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Keith <kwo...@citywest.ca> wrote: > Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3? > > What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2 > and 3 on our traffic? > ./diogo -montagner JNCIE-SP 0x41A _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
