Memory limitations on the 2621 preclude it. I'm got it up to
UUNET+Customers and Sprint+Customers now and 8mb free, so it's pretty
stable, at least long enough until we'll be replacing it with a 2651 or
better.
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROT
J,
I am just curious, why did you not go with the entire I-net route table?
-Scott
""J Roysdon"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9a975p$ua8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9a975p$ua8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was indeed as synchronization problem. My understanding is that in
order
> to bring it
It was indeed as synchronization problem. My understanding is that in order
to bring it from BGP into the routing table, it has to be able to reach the
next-hop address from IGP. What's odd is that both WAN links to the
upstream ISPs were in iBGP, so I need to read up on synchronization some
mor
[I'm resending this from my work address because the first attempt
didn't appear to succeed.]
Forgive me if I missed something but this appears to be the famous
iBGP
synchronization problem, which I believe can be fixed by turning off
synchronization and set 'next-hop-self' on advertisements betw
Ok, more info (plus I have BGP to UUNET up and have the same problem the
reverse direction). 206.51.253.1 is part of UUNET AS701. 64.6.1.1 is part
of Sprint AS1239:
ISC-Mod-3640#sh ip bgp 206.51.253.1
BGP routing table entry for 206.51.253.0/24, version 0
Paths: (1 available, no best path)
No
It's been delayed time and again, but I've finally found the time to push
through the docs and configuration notes needed to get our ASN up and
running with our upstream providers.
So, this morning we began announcing ASN 18506 and our netblocks out
Sprintlink with no problems. I had them turn o
6 matches
Mail list logo
