Correct me if I am wrong but this:
> if an iBGP peer learns that another iBGP peer already has a better
> route to a specific prefix, it will issue a withdrawl to that peer
> for the prefix(es).
is perfectly normal, standart behaviour.
If your Genuity route is better, you will select this route
Alan,
This router with 700 routes via iBGP does have remaining 103300 routes,
but from eBGP, right?
Przemek
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 17:33, Manny Gonzalez wrote:
> Is there a STOP command? Something to let us turn that behaviour off?
> The way I see it is, if the router with the 104000+ routes s
should not, by default, enjoy
> the ibgp routes learned from the peer over the ebgp learned routes.
>
>
>
> At 05:37 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote:
> >Correct me if I am wrong but this:
> >
> > > if an iBGP peer learns that another iBGP peer al
Looking closer at routers behoviour in my lab i still belive
that what you see is perfectly normal:
1) In phase 1 both routers suck all routes from AS701 and AS1.
2) In phase 2 they send to each other via iBGP connection
all routes received from eBGP peers.
3) In phase 3 scanner (or whatever i
he other is Four (4) AS Hops away.
>
> You've also originated a route prefix in two separate AS's, which
> while technically possible (I guess), is never supposed to happen.
>
> Alan
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki"
>
,
and I would expect that anything other would be
in violation to RFC
Przemek
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 21:03, W. Alan Robertson wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki"
>
> > 5) In phase 5 some of eBGP routes which has lost
> >
Ok,
Lab is done. I expected 20 minutes, it tooks 1 hour.
Important lesson about time management learnt :)
small legend:
r5 and r6 are routers in AS4
If anyone care I can send complete configs.
Przemek
r5#sh ip bgp summ
BGP router identifier 2.2.2.1, local AS number 4
BGP table version is
referred because it is
> only two AS hops away... The externally learned route, from peer
> 1.1.34.3, shows AS3 twice in the path, making this route 3 AS hops
> away.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki"
> To: "W. Alan Robertson"
I know that this is probably not what you are looking for,
but in [Doyle, page121] there is a case stydy "A Protocol Conflict"
showing a problems with interaction between proxy ARP and bridging.
Przemek
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Cis
How many packet per second hping2 generates?
If it saturates 100BaseT, maybe you had just reached
performance limit of PIX520?
I am not trying to say that PIX will not handle traffic
in proximity of 150,000-200,000 pps.
I simply don't know that.
But, if it needs to analyze 150,000 SYN packets p
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 21:18, d tran wrote:
> I am not sure how many Packets/Sec hping2 generate but I don't think
100BaseT
> was saturated because the whole thing is connected to a Cisco 2924-XL
Enterprise
> switch (running 12.05(T)) IOS.
I mentioned this saturation stuff not to suggest that it
11 matches
Mail list logo
