Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-19 Thread Julian Eccli
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 ""

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-15 Thread Peter Van Oene
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 Beyo

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-15 Thread Richard Chang
$5ab$[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 > multiho

RE: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-15 Thread Louie Belt
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 tha

RE: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-15 Thread Brant Stevens
] 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 ne

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-15 Thread Groupstudy
upstudy.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 f

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Robert Nelson-Cox
>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 conne

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Raul Camacho
t;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 conclu

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Richard Chang
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 tha

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Raul Camacho
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 PROT

Re: IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Akbar Kara
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

IBGP multihop?

2001-03-14 Thread Richard Chang
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 hi