Re: IBGP multihop?
You do not need to worry about iBGP multi-hop since the TTL is not 1 (Not sure what the default is for IOS). Need to make sure each neighbor knows how to reach each other so your IGP must know about the destination prefix it is trying to reach and have a valid next_hop in it's table. /julian ""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]
Re: IBGP multihop?
comment inserted >For some reason, the BGP neighbor setup process won't take default route. >Therefore, I tried to add static route for the loopback interface and then >the bgp session finally came up. I would imagine using IGP to carry the >loopback address should work as well. > >Richard Beyond providing next hop resolution, loopback and general internal reachability is the primary use for IGP's in ISP networks. Pete _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBGP multihop?
Thanks for all the recommendation from the group. I finally figured out how to make it work... Originally, on R2 , there is no route to 3.3.3.3, the reason why it is pinging is because of the default route. Same on R3. I ran "debug ip bgp out" and got the following error: 23:48:57: BGP: 2.2.2.2 multihop open delayed 13727ms (no route) 23:49:11: BGP: 2.2.2.2 multihop open delayed 16256ms (no route) 23:49:27: BGP: 2.2.2.2 multihop open delayed 13949ms (no route) 23:49:41: BGP: 2.2.2.2 multihop open delayed 18975ms (no route) 23:50:00: BGP: 2.2.2.2 multihop open delayed 19711ms (no route) For some reason, the BGP neighbor setup process won't take default route. Therefore, I tried to add static route for the loopback interface and then the bgp session finally came up. I would imagine using IGP to carry the loopback address should work as well. Richard ""Raul Camacho"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 98pun2$b5l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98pun2$b5l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just replicated your scenario: > > Top: > > R1R4R3 > > R1 lo0: 172.16.31.1 > R1---R4: 172.16.4.X /24 > R4---R3: 172.16.3.X /24 > R4 lo0: 172.16.144.1 > > IP OSPF running on R1,4,3; area 0 > > R3 BGP config: > router bgp 65001 > neighbor 172.16.31.1 remote-as 65001 > neighbor 172.16.31.1 update-source Loopback0 > > R1 BGP config: > router bgp 65001 > neighbor 172.16.144.1 remote-as 65001 > neighbor 172.16.144.1 update-source Loopback0 > > OSPF routes: > r1#sh ip rou ospf > 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 2 masks > O 172.16.144.1/32 [110/75] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 > O 172.16.128.0/24 [110/84] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 > O 172.16.242.4/32 [110/65] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 > O 172.16.3.0/24 [110/74] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 > > IBGP relationship: > r1#b > BGP router identifier 172.16.31.1, local AS number 65001 > BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 > > NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > > 172.16.144.14 65001 8 8100 00:05:13 0 > > ""Richard Chang"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > 98prh1$5ab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98prh1$5ab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > 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 > > > > NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down > > State/PfxRcd > > 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0000 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
RE: IBGP multihop?
Try the same scenario with an extended ping to insure to and from reachability from the specific interface, not just the router. Louie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Chang Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0000 neverActive 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]
RE: IBGP multihop?
I believe what you are looking for is the next-hop-self keyword for a given ibgp neigbor configuration... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Nelson-Cox Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IBGP multihop? >From: "Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: IBGP multihop? >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:35:27 -0800 > >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... You need to use the update-source command in BGP. > > Thanks > > > > Richard Rob./ > > > > _ > > 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] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. _ 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]
Re: IBGP multihop?
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 > > NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0000 neverActive > > 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]
Re: IBGP multihop?
>From: "Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: IBGP multihop? >Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:35:27 -0800 > >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... You need to use the update-source command in BGP. > > Thanks > > > > Richard Rob./ > > > > _ > > 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] _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IBGP multihop?
Just replicated your scenario: Top: R1R4R3 R1 lo0: 172.16.31.1 R1---R4: 172.16.4.X /24 R4---R3: 172.16.3.X /24 R4 lo0: 172.16.144.1 IP OSPF running on R1,4,3; area 0 R3 BGP config: router bgp 65001 neighbor 172.16.31.1 remote-as 65001 neighbor 172.16.31.1 update-source Loopback0 R1 BGP config: router bgp 65001 neighbor 172.16.144.1 remote-as 65001 neighbor 172.16.144.1 update-source Loopback0 OSPF routes: r1#sh ip rou ospf 172.16.0.0/16 is variably subnetted, 6 subnets, 2 masks O 172.16.144.1/32 [110/75] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 O 172.16.128.0/24 [110/84] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 O 172.16.242.4/32 [110/65] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 O 172.16.3.0/24 [110/74] via 172.16.4.4, 00:08:44, Serial0.2 IBGP relationship: r1#b BGP router identifier 172.16.31.1, local AS number 65001 BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1 NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 172.16.144.14 65001 8 8100 00:05:130 ""Richard Chang"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 98prh1$5ab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98prh1$5ab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > 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 > > NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down > State/PfxRcd > 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0000 neverActive > > 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]
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 NeighborVAS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0000 neverActive 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]
Re: IBGP multihop?
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]
Re: IBGP multihop?
use neighbor w.x.y.z update-source loopback 0 On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Richard Chang wrote: > 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]
IBGP multihop?
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]
