Trunking over Aironet bridge? [7:42833]
Anyone know if you can pass 802.1q over Aironet bridges? -mdb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42833t=42833 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BGP route selection question [7:42456]
I have a router that is running BGP to two different providers... When I show the bgp entry for two different routes, it shows that one provider is selected for one route, and the other provider is selected for the other route, even though they seem to have the same AS path length from each provider. There isn't any difference as far as I can tell for MED or local preference settings or anything like that... The route on the bottom looks normal - its being chosen (I assume) because the 64.*.*.* has the lower router ID (207.* instead of 208.*). The first entry is the one that doesn't make sense to me - shouldn't it also be selecting the 64.* router, by virtue of its lower ID? I see that there are different values for the version, but I'm not sure this would have anything to do with it?? rtr#show ip bgp 64.170.96.0/19 BGP routing table entry for 64.170.96.0/19, version 16127 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 4323 1239 5673 64.132.248.89 from 64.132.248.89 (207.67.76.17) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 3561 1239 5673 208.174.151.61 from 208.174.151.61 (208.172.66.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr#show ip bgp 12.3.59.0 BGP routing table entry for 12.3.59.0/24, version 742 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 3561 4513 17304 208.174.151.61 from 208.174.151.61 (208.172.66.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 4323 4513 17304 64.132.248.89 from 64.132.248.89 (207.67.76.17) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best ip classless ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 208.174.151.61 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 64.132.248.89 ip as-path access-list 78 permit ^$ -Mike Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42456t=42456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP route selection question [7:42456]
Both routes should have come in at approximately the same time, since we had just done a clear ip bgp * within about 30 minutes prior to seeing these entries. If it is load balancing, then this is good... Its actually the exact problem I'm trying to fix... One of the T1 links is pegged, the other is only getting about 300K. This is supported by the fact that about 75% of the route entries point out the congested link. Not sure there is much I can do to alter the load balance, but this was a curiosity when I was writing an email to the owner to tell him what was happening, and I did a double-take and thought maybe there really is something messed up. -mike bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Peter van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:25 PM To: Michael Bray; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BGP route selection question [7:42456] off the top of my head If these paths were advertised at different times, this could result in this posting, or be the artifact of some load distribution. At 03:16 PM 4/24/2002 -0400, Michael Bray wrote: I have a router that is running BGP to two different providers... When I show the bgp entry for two different routes, it shows that one provider is selected for one route, and the other provider is selected for the other route, even though they seem to have the same AS path length from each provider. There isn't any difference as far as I can tell for MED or local preference settings or anything like that... The route on the bottom looks normal - its being chosen (I assume) because the 64.*.*.* has the lower router ID (207.* instead of 208.*). The first entry is the one that doesn't make sense to me - shouldn't it also be selecting the 64.* router, by virtue of its lower ID? I see that there are different values for the version, but I'm not sure this would have anything to do with it?? rtr#show ip bgp 64.170.96.0/19 BGP routing table entry for 64.170.96.0/19, version 16127 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 4323 1239 5673 64.132.248.89 from 64.132.248.89 (207.67.76.17) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 3561 1239 5673 208.174.151.61 from 208.174.151.61 (208.172.66.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best rtr#show ip bgp 12.3.59.0 BGP routing table entry for 12.3.59.0/24, version 742 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 3561 4513 17304 208.174.151.61 from 208.174.151.61 (208.172.66.20) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 4323 4513 17304 64.132.248.89 from 64.132.248.89 (207.67.76.17) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=42462t=42456 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what does 0 in 0Xnnnn mean? [7:40372]
Actually the answer to this is very simple... The '0x' means hexadecimal - this has been mentioned several times. The '0' indicates that it is a number, as opposed to a variable. 0xff can be interpreted by the parser as a number, but xff would be interpreted as a variable name... Mike Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Marko Milivojevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: what does 0 in 0X mean? [7:40372] I know that... by why? What's the origin of the 0X? In Cisco devices - most probably the same notation as used in C programming language. Why is that way in C is computer history and I think that I missed that class :-) Marko. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40811t=40372 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: netbios over internet [7:40784]
You certainly can do file sharing over the internet - saying 'NetBIOS' is routable is a bit misleading though... It's the underlying protocol that determines its ability to be routed... -mike bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Priscilla Oppenheimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: netbios over internet [7:40784] NetBEUI is non-routable. NetBIOS is routable. NetBIOS over TCP/IP should supposedly work over the Internet. For example, can't you do file sharing over the Internet? That uses NetBIOS and SMB of CIFS. (I'm a Mac person, but in theory it should work. ;-) Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=40841t=40784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
