Did you read trough the
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1829/products_feat
ure_guide09186a0080087c60.html
12.0
BGP Received Routes MIB
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1839/products_feat
ure_guide09186a0080110bbc.html
12.2T
BGP 4 MIB Support for
Is it possible to have some sh run, sh ip route, sh ip bgp nei configs
please any two will do.You don't have to give away you IDs for
Thank you
Ollie
AT&T Common Backbone
866-397-7309 Opt 1
-Original Message-
From: JMC Nel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1
Perhaps a config would be helpful. Or do you expect us to use our psychic
abilities to determine the problem? ;-)
>>> JMC Nel 9/3/03 12:29:06 PM >>>
Could someone please assist me? I set up a customer to received the Partial
TABLE but for some reason the customer is receiving the Full Table. I
Matthew,
In your current configuration you have a route-map "com1" with a
sequence of 10 in which BGP will look at first as you recieve updates from
neighbor R1. Now, within that route map you have specified "match ip address
3", so in acl 3 you are PERMITTING 10.3.2.0/24 and then set acl 3
Not completely on topic, sorry It is about a router, not a pc box.
Martijn
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Jansen, M
Verzonden: dinsdag 19 augustus 2003 8:15
Aan: Eddie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: RE: BGP Connectivity Problem [7:74100]
What about mobile IP or VPN to border
What about mobile IP or VPN to border router and get an internal IP for the
tftp server's point of view...
Just in a typing mood.
Martijn
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Eddie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 18 augustus 2003 15:06
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re
HI Eddie, Fred,
thanks for your help...I think this most likely is the problem. As I do not
have access to teh TFTP server, I am unable to fix it though.
cheers,
Matthew.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=74130&t=74100
-
The default route on your TFTP server is not set properly.
Fred Reimer - CCNA
Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338
Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050
NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which
may be legally
Matthew Webster wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have done a sample bgp configuration at r1r2.com. My network setup is as
> follows:
>
> TFTP_Server-(e0)r1(s0)--(s0)r2
>
> s0 = 192.168.100.0/24 (.1 for r1, .2 for r2) and e0 = 10.1.4.1/24.
>
> The problem is that while I can ping the TFTP server (
--On 07 August 2003 02:50 + Mwalie W wrote:
>
> Yes, you will have to begin chasing VUE and Cisco.
>
Thanks, that is what I thought
>
> Good Luck! You must be a very patient person:-) And this is also the
> reason I do not like Beta exams now.
>
Actually, I am very impatient. Which is wh
Peter,
Yes, you will have to begin chasing VUE and Cisco.
For example, I did BGP Beta on May 30th 2003 and I got a letter about my
passing from Prometric around 20th June 2003. After a few days, it also
appeared in my Tracking System.
The same with BSCI Beta 643-801.
It could have something to
dre wrote:
> ""KW S"" wrote in message ...
>
>>What is the benefits of receiving the following BGP routes
>>1. Full routes
>>2. Partial routes
>>3. No routes
>
>
> Well #3 means it doesn't work (you need at least a default route, or
> 0.0.0.0/0), so I'll skip that one...
Sure it works,
Hi,
Full Routes : That's for your router to maintain anyAS-to-anyAS routing
info . If you recv full routes from your ISP then it's more of a
disadvantage / overhead . That's so because you'll have to have loads of
RAM and CPU power in your ROUTER connecting to the ISP to maintain those
routing tab
""KW S"" wrote in message ...
> What is the benefits of receiving the following BGP routes
> 1. Full routes
> 2. Partial routes
> 3. No routes
Well #3 means it doesn't work (you need at least a default route, or
0.0.0.0/0), so I'll skip that one...
Full routes from two or more providers, wit
i have configured all three for differant requirements. There is no
benefit per se, it simply depends on the what your trying to accomplish
and how your connected.
Dave
Justin M. Morgenthaler wrote:
> I would assume "Convergence" and the avoidance of this:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/pub
I would assume "Convergence" and the avoidance of this:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/770/fn12942.html
-Justin M. Morgenthaler
""KW S"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dear all
>
> What is the benefits of receiving the following BGP routes
> 1. Full routes
> 2. Partial routes
> 3.
inks, a strategy of that kind would be at best suboptimal.
Heiko
--
-- PREVINET S.p.A. www.previnet.it
-- Heiko Herold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- +39-041-5907073 ph
-- +39-041-5907472 fax
> -Original Message-
> From: - jvd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:50 P
At 01:51 PM 6/24/2003 +, p b wrote:
>Someone sent me a pointer off list (thanks Rob) that pointed
>me to the "bgp inject-map" command.
Yes, that's probably a much better suggestion. Wonder why off list..?
Thanks,
Zsombor
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71
Thanks. Yea, this is a real design.
Can't do the /25 statics to the entity that IGP advertises the
/24 as there are dual links and multiple hops and certain failure
scenarios will cause traffic to get blackholed.
Someone sent me a pointer off list (thanks Rob) that pointed
me to the "bgp i
Hi,
is this only an exercise or you really need to do this? If the latter, then
I would be curious to know why this would be useful. I feel a slight
contradiction in that you can't control whether a /24 or two /25 routes
reach you yet you seem to know what is in one half versus the other half o
At 1:57 PM + 6/22/03, - jvd wrote:
>Thank you for your answer Howard. Unfortunately I don't have enough
>experience to answer in such depth as you did but maybe one day I'll get
>there. :-)
>
>PS. Isn't it good to see that experts participate in this forum too?
>
Ah, but you are missing some o
Thank you for your answer Howard. Unfortunately I don't have enough
experience to answer in such depth as you did but maybe one day I'll get
there. :-)
PS. Isn't it good to see that experts participate in this forum too?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71088&t=70
Sounds like you may want to disable synchronization to get your routes
advertized...
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71079&t=71073
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.ht
A team of us have been drafting IETF documents for a generalized
approach to single-router BGP convergence. The terminology document
is about to go to the RFC editor after some final text formatting.
The methodology document has technically expired--the economy hit the
team, but we should be g
At 08:35 PM 6/21/2003 +, - jvd wrote:
>Hi Zsombor,
>
>The last time I checked BGP was a routing protocol, that means there is an
>algorithm running that's calculating the best path to a destination. A bunch
>of information is advertised to you and your router needs to decide which
>routes to pu
Hi Zsombor,
The last time I checked BGP was a routing protocol, that means there is an
algorithm running that's calculating the best path to a destination. A bunch
of information is advertised to you and your router needs to decide which
routes to put in the routing table based on the information
At 07:50 PM 6/20/2003 +, - jvd wrote:
>2. If you want to run full BGP tables you will need a router with more punch
>than the 1720. I did a proposal once with a 2650XM and the 2691 is also a
>good option. Next in line would be your 3640. Of course all of these models
>will need at least 128MB D
Hi,
Just a few thoughts:
1. You can use something small like a 1720 to run BGP but the trick here is
to filter all/some routes that you are receiving. The current recommendation
from Cisco is 128MB for full BGP routing tables (I think the tables stand on
110 000 routes now). The second part would
hi guys,
r1r3---ISP1---
LAN 10.6.0.0| |Internet
r2r4---ISP2---
r1, r2, r3 and r4 are running BGP, there is only one path to the Internet
and vice versa. Suppose the path is from isp2, r4, r2 how do i
.
A little clearer??
;->
>From: "Mwalie W"
>Reply-To: "Mwalie W"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: BGP Help! [7:70618]
>Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:05:42 GMT
>
>Hi,
>
>I have come across that Cisco statement before: I guess it means that on
HI
I believe this is about transit AS. If you are doing multihoming with 2-3
ISPs, you do not enable your AS to forward traffic from ISP1 to ISP2 or
ISP3. This means you do not make your AS as transit AS. Doing this will
enable for eg ISP1 to go to ISP2 using your AS, as that would be a shorter
ro
Hi,
I have come across that Cisco statement before: I guess it means that one AS
does not influence the routing policies of another AS :)
In other words (hoping I am right), AS1 implements its own internal routing
policy, as will AS2 and AS1 will not dictate to AS2 how AS2 should route
AS1's traf
- Original Message -
> From: "jayhawks-2003"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: BGP Policy-based Routing -- applicable for inbound and
> [7:70083]
>
>
> > I think you are confusing ip policy routing with BGP policy routing.
These
hi,
this is nice cisco's page for BGP...
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ics/icsbgp4.htm
Selcuk
- Original Message -
From: "jayhawks-2003"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Policy-based Routing -- applicable for inbound and
I think you are confusing ip policy routing with BGP policy routing. These
are
two DIFFERENT concepts. A BGP routing policy determines what networks a BGP
speaking router can receive or advertise to / from a neighboring BGP
speaking
router ( IBGP or EBGP ). You use BGP neighbor statements to deter
Glad to help !!
Hope it was worth it towards your BGP learning process and towards your
CCIP!!
Based on the many Cisco exams that I have taken, BGP was the most
extensive and thorough exam (becoz' it is a beta) but it does really test
your knowledge on it, right?
And the second most difficult af
Hi,
I really appreciate your help.:). Ill let you know about how i fared
tomorrwow. Thanks a zillion!!!
Regards
Shahryar
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69777&t=69644
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
Thanks Tom.. good explanation! This was my thought to the tee.. Yes I agree
with cisco that it does not hurt to add it to add value to the design.. But
as you just stated.. "ebgp-multihop is NOT necessary for load balancing"
That was my point all along.. Just wanted to clarify my point so I am not
Salvatore,
ebg-multihop is not required for load balancing. It can be beneficial
to use a loopback to peer from/to, similar to IPX internal networks
provide better load balancing for NetWare servers.
If you feel it's a good idea to peer to/from loopack interfaces
(redundancy, better balancing
Understood.. but does the command "neigh x.x.x.x ebgp-multihop X" by itself
provide load-balancing? I could be wrong.. but from my undrstanding this
just states that you have the capability of peering with neigh that are not
directly connected.. You could very well acheive loadbalancing when 2 EBG
BGP load balancing can be done using BGP peering on loopback address .And
you have to add static routes in
your routing table for loopback ip address and mention next-hop as serial
links ip addresses/serial interface
example:
nei loopbackip remote-as asnumber
nei loopbackip ebgp-multihop nu
Folllowing on from everyone else, we often make use of loopbacks for
internal peering, that way you will always have redundant paths to iBGP
peers, however when peering with external peers / isp we make use of the
external facing interface ip.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/r
No
- Original Message -
From: "Azhar Teza"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 11:16 PM
Subject: BGP Load Balance [7:69611]
> If BGP route has two equal paths to the same destination, can it do load
> balance by installing the command? maximum-paths 2
>
> _
Hi,
I am also taking it on 30th. Can you please advice me a little bit further
on the format. Are there any simulation based questions??
Regards
ShahryarMwalie W wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Today, I did BGP Beta towards CCIP.
>
> A very thorough exam, with some bugs and grammatical mistakes
> here
Yes you can load-balance traffic to the same destination over 2 equal
logical paths using
"maximum-paths 2"
Using Loopback address ip to peer and acheive load-balancing to the same
destination will require
either to use process-switching - not recommended - or enable CEF and do "
per-packet loa
heres the cisco guide on it.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ics/icsbgp4.htm#2351
Bri
- Original Message -
From: "Salvatore De Luca"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: BGP Load Balance [7:69611]
> I personally prefer Peering with
I personally prefer Peering with Loops myself.. the EBGP multihop command
has absolutley nothing to do with loadbalancing. It it used for peering with
neighbors whom are not directly connected.. There are various ways of
performing BGP load balancing.. Metric..route-maps.. etc.. Pick your flavor.
The way I've seen 2 paths used is by peering with a loopback interface and
using
neighbor peerip ebgp-multihop in the config.
Brian
- Original Message -
From: "Azhar Teza"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: BGP Load Balance [7:69611]
> If BGP route has two equal pat
At 01:53 AM 4/6/2003 +, Bullwinkle wrote:
>In other words, for purposes of testing, there are ONLY two ways to remove
>things from the AS_PATH. 1) the technique you describe, which is to create
Both these techniques are invalid in my opinion. If you create a new
route, you haven't changed th
Agreed by me.. the trick is it seems that we want to remove AS1 from the
AS-path without filtering the whole IP Block. As long as AS2 Can Create the
route you want advertised to R3,(Network Statments pointing to Null route
injections will do this and put it in the BGP table). You can then filter
ro
In other words, for purposes of testing, there are ONLY two ways to remove
things from the AS_PATH. 1) the technique you describe, which is to create
an aggregate and advertise that aggregate only ( although refresh my
memory - an aggregate might still contain full AS_PATH information - don't
have
I hear ya.. that's why if this was a TEST situation, the statement:
ip as-path access-list 1 permit _2_ & ! _2_ _1$ would permit routes
traversing AS2 but deny any routes traversed though AS2 Originating in AS1.
In which case 150.50.200.0 aggregated element should be the nlri "Fresh
Route" point f
You are both right.. but the problem scenario does'nt give you that mutch
info.. I am trying to deduce all and any ways of going about possible
peering 128.1.1.254. The scenario does not specify if it is a directly
connected peer on the lan segment. That is why I tried updating the source
to the Et
At 03:46 PM 4/5/2003 +, Salvatore De Luca wrote:
>Hi All,
>
> I am trying to better understand a particular BGP scenario, thought
>someone might shed some light. This is probably very simple, i am just
>missing the punchline. If you have 2 routers, one let's say running in AS100
>the other
At 08:26 PM 4/5/2003 +, Salvatore De Luca wrote:
>I have to agree that it is a bit silly, dangerous, and should not be done on
>a production enviornment.. but so are a lot of scenarios on the CCIE Lab..
>Just to add to the sillyness:
Because it is silly and dangerous, you also can't do it with
At 04:22 PM 4/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>150.50.200.0(R1)(R2)--(R3).
>
>R1 belongs to AS1
>R2 belongs to AS2
>R3 belongs to AS3
>
>I inject 150.50.200.0 using the network command on R1 and see 150.50.200.0
>in R3 with as_path of 2 1.
>
>The question is how can I remove the 1 from the As Path
I have to agree that it is a bit silly, dangerous, and should not be done on
a production enviornment.. but so are a lot of scenarios on the CCIE Lab..
Just to add to the sillyness:
Not sure how this would work, but you can try it.. have you tried as-path
manupulation? From what I can see you wan
unless the peers are on the same segment, you also need the neighbor
ebgp-multihop command configured on both routers.
HTH
--
-
Bullwinkle: Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a CCIE out of my hat!
Rocky: Bullwinkle, that trick NEVER works
Bullwinkle:
At 04:52 PM 3/31/2003 +, \"\"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"\"
wrote:
>All,
>
>Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
>
>IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one another, as long as
>an IGP (most preferably) is running between them.
In most cases the routers are not
Wellthat is what the book says. Try it out on your own lab and you will
see that a Route-reflector client does not have to be directly connected to
the Route-reflector for it to work. Just tried it in my home lab and it
works, the client is 3 routers away.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groups
Thx to all who replied.
Make sense now :))
Beers to all!
-Original Message-
From: The Long and Winding Road [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 March 2003 05:33
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP Route Reflectors [7:66488]
""Mike Martins"" wrote in message
n
""Mike Martins"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yes, EBGP multihop is between different AS's, that is a different setup,
it
> must also have a way of reaching across the hops, an IGP.
nope - works just fine for iBGP as well.
>
> On a IBGP you can have a hop across ie 5 routers in a
Yes, EBGP multihop is between different AS's, that is a different setup, it
must also have a way of reaching across the hops, an IGP.
On a IBGP you can have a hop across ie 5 routers in a IBGP peering session.
As long as the IGP can reach the other peer it will work. Also, the full
mesh requiremen
The Long and Winding Road wrote:
>
> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > All,
> >
> > Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
> >
> > IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one
> another, as long
> as
> > an IGP (most preferably) is running between t
A practise that is becoming quite common is running BGP on the edges of an
AS only. It is a waste for a router in the core to have a full internet
table. The Core could then comprise of ie MPLS which would optimize the
traffic flows.
I cannot remember which book I used but when I was studying for t
Ken,
Technically speaking, even eBGP has the ability to peer with
neighbors that aren't directly connected. Typically, eBGP peers will have
diect physical connectivity, whereas iBGP peers are part of the same AS, as
long as a route/path exist to that peer, connectivity shouldn't be a
probl
wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All,
>
> Please can someone clear this up for me, if you have the time.
>
> IBGP peers do not have to be physically connected to one another, as long
as
> an IGP (most preferably) is running between them.
nope. direct connect is preferred, but nope - don'
Like Advanced VPN by Allwyn or MPLS Traffic Engineering book??
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
CN
>From: "Willy Schoots" >To: "'Cisco Nuts'" >Subject: RE: BGP exam in
prep. for the CCIE Lab!! [7:66432] >Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:03:12 +0100
> >
Look into Cisco bug ID CSCdp26660. Basically you'll need to either not
use the command or upgrade the IOS.
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
Director of CCIE Training and Development - IPexpert, Inc.
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Outside U.S. & Canada: 312.321.6924
URL: http://www.IPex
Long and Winding Road"
>Reply-To: "The Long and Winding Road"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP default-originate crashes the router everytime - Why??
>[7:66274]
>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:47:25 GMT
>
>""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message
&g
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello,
> Everytime, I configure #nei a.b.c.d default-originate on my routers, it
> crashes the router. I have tried this on different routers and it's the
> same result every time. Is this a problem on 25xx's series? My routers
have
> 16Fla
t set 2 static default routes out with one having a higher
AD
This way, he does not have to depend on the ISP's for the default - more
control.
Well, that's just my 2c ;->
>From: "Charles D Hammonds"
>Reply-To: "Charles D Hammonds"
>To:
access-list 30
charles
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Charles D Hammonds
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP Multihome 2 isp's [7:66137]
that would work, but I would get at least each providers in
that would work, but I would get at least each providers internal routes
rather than just a default. and unless it's for financial reasons (i.e.
billed per usage) I wouldn't prepend your AS on either link... just let the
internet do its thing and choose the best path.
Charles
-Original Messag
""Cisco Nuts"" wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello,
> Why is BGP bestpath as-path ignore a hidden cmd - if it indeed is?? Here
is
> what I got:
> AS7018-NAP(config)#router bgp 7018
> AS7018-NAP(config-router)#bgp bestpath as?
> % Unrecognized command
> AS7018-NAP(config-router)#bgp bes
Not necessarily. Recall that with eBGP sessions it is typical
to peer with the physical address. There are times when you
want to use the lo0 for eBGP (two parallel links, etc.) but
you'll need to specify both ebgp_multihop and define a route
to the peer's loopback.
Priscilla Oppenheimer wr
"You only have to use the update-source command when someone is peering to
your loopback address. This is true for an iBGP peer and an eBGP peer."
More info here:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk826/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080093fb8.shtml#updatesource
Message Posted at:
http
At 07:39 PM 3/11/2003 +, Oliver Hensel wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Can someone point me to a document which explains
>what happens with a prefix that is dampened if
>it's distributed via two providers.
Hi Oliver,
Here is a link to a doc from Randy Bush that covers damping in some detail.
http://psg.com/~
At 3:19 AM + 3/12/03, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>I'll take a stab at it since nobody else did.
>
>Oliver Hensel wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Can someone point me to a document which explains
>> what happens with a prefix that is dampened if
>> it's distributed via two providers.
>
>I don't thi
I'll take a stab at it since nobody else did.
Oliver Hensel wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Can someone point me to a document which explains
> what happens with a prefix that is dampened if
> it's distributed via two providers.
I don't think you'll find a document that answers the question explicitly
becau
>From the cisco website
Error Message
%BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor [chars][chars][chars][chars] [chars]
Explanation A BGP neighbor has either come up or gone down. This message
describes the change for the BGP neighbor and appears only if the
log-neighbor-changes command is configured fo
Hi Fred
Thanks for your reply.
I am trying to find out what causes the peer to lose connection. By looking
at the log,I only know that it was down for 9 mins. No other information is
given in the log.
I know that the notifications message itself has some kind of error code and
sub code that will
Notification is one of the 4 message types used by BGP. The other three are
keepalives, open and updates. Notifications are used to inform the
receiving router of errors. Looks like neighbor did not respond before hold
down time expired and therefore adjacency was lost and then recovered 9 min
1
Jim,
Continue to announce the /19 as before. You MAY want to also announce the
/24 you've allocated to your downstream; depending upon the business
relationship around this connectivity you may really want to announce the
more specific /24. This is probably the critical choice you'll make. More
Pete
Thanks for your help. I know it doesnt buy much redundancy, however it is
something that could be done to an existing system without much capital
outlay, and the organisation that I was thinking of has seemed to have had
a run of bad luck with single routers falling over during the last fe
At 03:59 PM 2/12/2003 +, Peter Walker wrote:
>Yep you are right.
>
>Lets try that again ...
>
>a) connect up1 to the same ethernet segment
>b) form bgp neighbor relationship with BGP peer at provider pr2
>c) advertise appropriate MED values requesting that pr2 prefer
>
Yep you are right.
Lets try that again ...
a) connect up1 to the same ethernet segment
b) form bgp neighbor relationship with BGP peer at provider pr2
c) advertise appropriate MED values requesting that pr2 prefer
up2
d) set local preference to prefer link
At 01:36 PM 2/12/2003 +, Peter Walker wrote:
>Folks
>
>A quick question on external BGP connection configuration.
>
>Given an organisation (ORG) with 2 EBGP routers (up1, up2) and two upstream
>providers (pr1, and pr2) where provider pr1 is currently linked to the
>router up1 via a serial link
At 4:11 AM + 2/11/03, Peter van Oene wrote:
>At 11:40 PM 2/10/2003 +, Peter Walker wrote:
>>Folks
>>
>>I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations for BGP study. I am
>>booked in for the BGP beta exam on Friday and still dont feel
>>comfortable with my level of BGP knowledge. I have r
At 11:40 PM 2/10/2003 +, Peter Walker wrote:
>Folks
>
>I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations for BGP study. I am
>booked in for the BGP beta exam on Friday and still dont feel
>comfortable with my level of BGP knowledge. I have read the following
>over the last few months
>
>
Don't have any gear to test this on, but what if you
put a "network 1.1.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255" in your
AS 200--AS300 eBGP peer? The route received from AS100
will populate the routing table and thus cause AS200's
network statement to be satisfied and thus advertised.
This may make 1.1.1.1 to a
Hello,
I have the practise lab I am working on.
3 routers in lab,
AS100 --AS200-AS300
I have a loopback 1.1.1.1 in AS100 and I want to advertise it to AS200 who
in turn will advertise it to AS300. When it arrives in AS300 it has to look
like it originated in AS200 and NOT for AS300.
Hi Rajesh,
In mail.net.groupstudy.pro, you wrote:
> I come across some situations where I could see some routes in the BGP
> table, but those routes aren't there in the regular routing table. The
> configuration has "no sync" configured and couldn't guess how to go
> about it. Can somebody
Rajesh,
Check the next hop for the BGP routes and see if it is reachable. If not you
can use next-hop-self command to fix the issue or have IGP reach that next
hop address.
Hope this helps.
Sunil Soporie
""Rajesh Kumar"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all,
>
Hi Pete,
Try clearing the 'set community no-export' command in your route map and see
if 22.22.22.22/24 propagates over to 153.153.3.3. I am suspecting maybe
tagging the no-export community while redistributing into the bgp process
may actually cause the Loopback22 route not to be exported
If tha
r u sure dre? because BSCI is already testing BGP heavily. It looks like its
a new elective or they may make it a required exam in addition to BSCI and
MCAST.
dre wrote:""Amin Moustafa"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What about the new BGP beta exam?
> will it be
""Amin Moustafa"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What about the new BGP beta exam?
> will it be a new CCIP elective one?
My guess is that Cisco is replacing the MCAST+QOS course with BGP and
making it a required part of CCIP certification, not as an elective.
-dr
Does this exam count for 1 Certification (CCIP)?
""Amin Moustafa"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all
> What about the new BGP beta exam?
> will it be a new CCIP elective one?
> Regards
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6218
This is a minor detail that a lot of documentation assumes you know
already, which is a bad assumption.
le = less than or equal to,
ge = greater than or equal to.
Read the prefix lists in that manner and they suddenly make a lot more
sense!
HTH,
John
>>> "ericbrouwers" 1/29/03 2:44:47 PM >>>
I am confused why you are using dafault routes and BGP at the same time
in this setup and why you are using IGP with just 2 routers?
Coming back to your question:
When you advertise an IGP route in the BGP process with "network" statement,
the
ORIGIN attribute in the update messages is set to IGP
1 - 100 of 1079 matches
Mail list logo
