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
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:
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
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,
>
TED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP question. [7:55944]
>Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:57:12 +
>
_
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2m
1- Try to remove the prepending you did and see whether things will come
back to normal or not.
2- If it came back to normal condition then check the way you are
configuring this route-map and discuss it with your ISP to get more
feedback from him
The processor & memory readings you provided are
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP Question
>Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:28:45 -0700
>
>configs seem right, unless i overlooked something...some people have
>reported that it works on some IOS, what IOS are you using? have you tried
>different versions?
>
>At 0
Annju,
seems like you are missing the 192.net statement in R2 for IGRP.
HTH,
Mark.
-Original Message-
From: Andy Fang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2002 8:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP Question [7:47600]
Backdoor net admin distance = 200
EBGP net
configs seem right, unless i overlooked something...some people have
reported that it works on some IOS, what IOS are you using? have you tried
different versions?
At 01:23 PM 6/27/2002 -0700, Annu Roopa wrote:
>Group,
>
>Here is a BGP scenario whic is troubling me. what am i
>doing wrong ? The
Backdoor net admin distance = 200
EBGP net admin distance = 20
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fiprrp_r/bgp_r/1rfbgp2.htm#xtocid15
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Annu
Roopa
Sent: Thurs
Since you are using AS 200 as the in-between, we need the config on R10
also. In addition, then display of "show ip bgp neig sum" command on each
router will also be helpful.
Derek
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Annu
Roopa
Sent: Thursda
I may be off on this, but I think the bgp always-compare-med command enables
the comparison of MEDs from different AS's for best path determination, but
it does not make it the primary criteria. MED comparison is like step 6 in
the path determination algorithm.
check the following link on the Ci
You could configure BGP on this link also but prepend the AS a few
times to make it less attactive. Don't learn any routes over this link
but instead point a default route with a high metric. This is ASSuming
you want to use this T1 only in the event you loose the other two links,
this is not cle
Hi Nabil,
If you want to ensure your NLRI is propogated through the net on the T1
actively before any possible DR scenarios take place I would recommend
prepending your AS number a bunch of times (5-6 times should be more than
enough) on the T1 backup link for your outbound route-map.
This would
Customer needs to get their own AS.
Daniel Ladrach
CCNA, CCNP
WorldCom
> -Original Message-
> From: Junkie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: BGP question [7:43163]
>
>
> You shouldn
You shouldn't have a problem at all. I have done this a few times, just
make sure that both ISP's know you have a multihomed network and what
block the other ISP provided. Just like Jason mentioned, it's AS to
AS...but we had a situation where the ISP had to add the other ISP's
block into an acc
3:36 PM
To: cisco
Cc: lafraia
Subject: Re: BGP question [7:43163]
AFAIK, they couldn't. In this case you would have to apply for your own
independent range of addresses and ISP1 and ISP2 would have to advertise
these routes for you. In this case you would use communities, med,
as_path
prepend and
If you don't advertise reachability, you aren't reachable. You should
however be able to get one ISP to allow the other to route its
space. Otherwise, you're looking at getting some PI space, multihoming to
the same ISP, or using some load balancing tools to handle things via dns.
Pete
At
In this scenario it wouldn't matter who assigned the addresses to you.
You will be advertising those addresses via BGP to both ISPs, who in
turn should propagate those advertisements. I believe there are
situations where ISP2 would need some sort of verification from ISP1
that it's okay to adver
AFAIK, they couldn't. In this case you would have to apply for your own
independent range of addresses and ISP1 and ISP2 would have to advertise
these routes for you. In this case you would use communities, med, as_path
prepend and other stuff to influence the incoming traffic.
""Steven A. Ridder
The number of entries only implies the number of alternate paths available
to reach that network. BGP will only use the best path available by
default. In your example there is only one path available to that network.
This is not indicative of any problems with BGP, only a lack of redundancy
to
I guess it would eb possible with route-maps.
--
RFC 1149 Compliant.
Get in my head:
http://sar.dynu.com
""Kim Seng"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My network has an Internet Border router. The router
> has two ISPs connection: UUNET(T3) and SPRINT(T1). We
>
You could set the local preference to be higher on the routes comming in via
the prefered provider and prepend your own AS onto the aggrigate route you
send out to the non-prefered provider.
For the one /24 that you want to go in/out via the backup provider you
could use a route-map to "source-r
gt; > routers rather badly. The original poster referred to 2600s and 3600s
> > inside the AS.
> >
> > JMcL
> > - Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2002 09:36 am -
> >
> > "Lomker, Michael"
> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 05/04/
Simple. Run HSRP between the two routers. All packets are sent to the
active router
and if the other 7206 has a better route the packet goes back on to the LAN
and out
that 7206's Internet link.
Dave
"Steven A. Ridder" wrote:
> If I had 2 7206 routers dual homed to two different ISP's for
- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2002 09:36 am
> > -
> >
> >
> > "Lomker, Michael"
> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 05/04/2002 08:38 am
> > Please respond to "Lomker, Michael"
> >
> >
> > To:
leod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2002 09:36 am -
>
> "Lomker, Michael"
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 05/04/2002 08:38 am
> Please respond to "Lomker, Michael"
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject:RE: BGP question [7
This is how I would skin this cat ;)
Run Ethernet between your two gateway routers, then make them IBGP peers.
Have have your other routers connected to both gateway routers. Your 3600,
and 2600's should then do per-dest load balancing for their default route.
The smaller routers send their tr
Steve,
If it is optimal routing that your after, I would think that you could still
have your some of your internal 3600's or 2600's run BGP with your 2 gateway
routers, but just don't send the full internet routing table to them. For
instance, you could possibly put up as-path filters to allow
Short answer. If you want all the routers in your AS to have full
knowledge of prefixes, buy some memory and extend your BGP cloud to include
them. Otherwise, follow a dynamic default and live with suboptimal
routing. Adding the third router as you suggest is a helpful
option. However, in
aren't the 2 7206 dual homed, 2 connections to each ISP? why not run hsrp
on the 7206 and let those routers make decisions for all internal routers?
>From: "Ouellette, Tim"
>Reply-To: "Ouellette, Tim"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: BGP question [
It is absolutely not what people do, at least they better not be doing that.
Think about this. The current BGP route table is about 100,000 routes. If
you want redundancy, that means multiple routers as ASBR's, and if you're
talking OSPF as an IGP, then each ASBR then has to generate a type-5 LS
enny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 05/04/2002 09:36 am
> -
>
>
> "Lomker, Michael"
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 05/04/2002 08:38 am
> Please respond to "Lomker, Michael"
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subje
02 09:36 am -
"Lomker, Michael"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/04/2002 08:38 am
Please respond to "Lomker, Michael"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: BGP question [7:40525]
> Why is redistribution into an IGP a big no - no?
This can be simplified in the following way.
If you want your internal routers to be able to make a routing decision
based on an external bgp route that is somewhere on the net that I'd think
your internal router (3660) has to have that route in it's routing table
(maybe redistributed into some I
Smaller routers couldn't handle all these routes. Can anybody say "mushroom
cloud"?
""Lomker, Michael"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why is redistribution into an IGP a big no - no? My
> > understanding is that this is what people usually do.
>
> You'd have
> Why is redistribution into an IGP a big no - no? My
> understanding is that this is what people usually do.
You'd have to be careful about advertising those routes back out to BGP
again. There was a famous case of someone bringing down the Internet by
creating such a loop. Needless to say, t
Steve,
Why is redistribution into an IGP a big no - no? My understanding is that
this is what people usually do.
If you use OSPF and E2 routes on the third router, then OSPF should find the
optimal route.
Alex
Steven A. Ridder wrote:
>
> If I had 2 7206 routers dual homed to two different ISP
I must be going blind. I now see that a couple of other folks had
suggestions that sound a little more reasonable. Sorry about that. Let us
all know.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=31606&t=31468
--
FAQ, list arc
Tom,
Did you ever get an answer to your question? I had hoped someone would
chime in on this one. I was wondering if it had something to do with subnet
zero? Something doesn't seem right about that in the back of my mind, but
as you pointed out, the configs are pretty much the same otherwise.
My guess would be the next hop address is not in the routing table and
therefore the route is not advertised to any external peers.
The k1d
""Tom Pruneau"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BGP question, why do I get "Not advertised to any peer"
>
>
> Below is f
I am supprised that no one has explained this in normal terms to you so far.
Here goes. Under normal operation (in your case) BGP will not advertise a
network unless it learns it from an IGP first (in BGP's case it will
consider a static route an IGP route). You can make BGP advertise a network
n
none
line aux 0
line vty 0 4
login
!
end
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mcfadden, Chuck
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP question [7:27879]
Can we see your whole config?
ccie1ab
-Original
Can we see your whole config?
ccie1ab
-Original Message-
From: Bill Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 4:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP question [7:27879]
You have to have IP connectivity to your neighbor before BGP will work.
Static routes
Stephen,
BGP is not like other routing protocol where you use the network command to
run bgp on that interface. The network command is used to announce networks
that the router know about to its neighbor. This means that you must
already have a route on your router either via Static, IGRP, RIP,
It may work, but in real world redistributing from IGP to BGP is very bad
practice.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Stephane LITKOWSKI
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP question [7:27879]
You
That's normal. BGP doesn't actually route data like an IGP does, it only
handles routing information. You don't have to use RIP, you can use an
IGP or (preferably) static routes.
Hal Logan
Network Specialist / Adjunct Faculty
Computing and Engineering Technology
Manatee Community College
>
bject: RE: BGP question [7:27879]
You have to have IP connectivity to your neighbor before BGP will work.
Static routes will get you the same thing as RIP.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Stephen C
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 2:37
You have to have IP connectivity to your neighbor before BGP will work.
Static routes will get you the same thing as RIP.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Stephen C
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 2:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP
You need to announce all your local subnets :
- by using the network command, u can announce all subnets already placed in
the routing table by an IGP
- by redistributing your IGP on BGP using the "redistribute "
command in "router bgp" config mode
I see some OSPF routes in your routing table, so
is out yet.. .?
Nigel
- Original Message -
From: "Chuck Larrieu"
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: BGP question [7:25130]
> OK. I did some basic testing. Here is what I found:
>
> if you use the neighbor a.b.c.d local-as form of the command, the
re the route has been.
> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: BGP question [7:25130]
>
> Hi
>
> what I am trying to achieve is as follow
>
> AS 100 is connec
Systems Trainer
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP question [7:25130]
Hi
what I am trying to achieve is as follow
AS 100 is connected to AS 200.
AS 200 is connected to AS 300
AS 100 has route from
have an autonomous system number of
> 300
> > for the purpose of peering:
> >
> > router bgp 109
> > address-family ipv4 multicast
> > network 172.20.0.0
> > neighbor 172.20.1.1 local-as 300
> >
> > The following router configuration example shows the
0.0
> neighbor 172.20.1.1 local-as 300
>
>
> end of stuff from CCO
> -
>
>
> ""adam lee"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What version of IOS is that command in? I am using 12.0(9) and i
(9) and it's not in
> there.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> news
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 12:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: BGP question [7:25130]
>
>
> I think
I am fairly inexperienced with bgp. Could you or anyone tell me what is the
purpose of your excercise?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
adam lee
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 7:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP question [7
What version of IOS is that command in? I am using 12.0(9) and it's not in
there.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
news
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 12:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP question [7:25130]
I think
I think I got the correct answer
On R3, use neighbor ip address local-as AS#
Faisal
""Wojtek Zlobicki"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oops,
>
> I misunderstood the question... what is the correct answer ?
>
> > How is this command going to change the AS path l
I don't know, I am looking for the answer for myself.
Faisal
""Wojtek Zlobicki"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oops,
>
> I misunderstood the question... what is the correct answer ?
>
> > How is this command going to change the AS path list. The require task
>
Oops,
I misunderstood the question... what is the correct answer ?
> How is this command going to change the AS path list. The require task
was
> that R4 should see the loopback is from AS 200 not AS 100 (which is the
> originator).
>
> Faisal
>
>
> ""Wojtek Zlobicki"" wrote in message
> [EMAI
Hi
> > Any idea how this is done?
>
> neighbor R3_LOOPBACK next-hop-self
>
>
How is this command going to change the AS path list. The require task was
that R4 should see the loopback is from AS 200 not AS 100 (which is the
originator).
Faisal
""Wojtek Zlobicki"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PRO
""news"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,
>
> greetings...
> While practicing for CCIE lab, I encounter a question that is something
like
> this
>
> Topology:
> R1 R3 - R4
>
> R1 is on AS 100
> R3 is on AS 200
> R4 is on AS 500
>
> There is a loopba
You could really search the archives for this as its been answered a bunch
of times. Anyway, here's the short story.
A bunch of years ago, it was possible, due to smaller internet routing
tables sizes, to publish your external reachability to your interior gateway
routing protocol, otherwise know
I'm not sure I understand the question entirely. When you say A can't ping
D's loopback, have you tried an extended ping?
:-{)]
-Mark A. Morenz, MS Ed, CCNA, CCAI
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=15817&t=15796
--
F
If you want to e-mail what you have in mind I will take a look at it. I
happen to work for one of the afore mentioned companys, in the customer
support division no less.
-Michael
""Nabil Fares"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greetings,
>
> Need your expertise o
Greetings All
I think the context of some of the conversation is missing.
BGP can handle any class of address, and in fact the BGP being run on the
net at present (BGP4) is classless. The whole reason for CIDR was that it
was intended to shrink the size of the BGP routing tables. SO them saying
;
> Bill Fenech
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Irwin Lazar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: BGP question [7:4973]
>
>
> This is not a company that I would want to do
> business with. :-)
Yeah, I am in agreement with the below, and would immediately cross them
off my list, unless they are saying they will not allow you to announce
class a and class b space to them.
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Fri, 18 May 2001, W. Alan Robertson wrote:
> If my ISP
Relax
You were talking to a salesman.
Nod your head, have him/her pay for a good lunch; and ask to talk to one
of the engineers.
DaveC
Rizzo Damian wrote:
>
> Hey folks, I have a quick question regarding BGP. We are looking for an
> alternative ISP for our Internet. One company we spoke
]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BGP question [7:4973]
This is not a company that I would want to do business with. :-)
Maybe it is just me, but if you only have one connection to your ISP, I
don't see any reason for BGP.
Irwin
-Original Mess
This is not a company that I would want to do business with. :-)
Maybe it is just me, but if you only have one connection to your ISP, I
don't see any reason for BGP.
Irwin
-Original Message-
From: Rizzo Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 9:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PR
They may be assuming that you will advertise a small block of the /8 space
(say a /24 or /23 etc) which likely be filtered by various providers. Small
advertisements out of the class C space would not suffer similarily.
Pete
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 5/18/2001 at 9:38 AM Riz
The question I have is: is the class A address space you're using on your
LAN private? (10/8,192.168/16,etc)? Perhaps the tech was explaining why he
would not route your space because it is prohibited per RFC 1918.
In other words, if you have numbered your network with the 10/8 network
space, yo
Hmm...
>
I would venture to say this fellow is not all that up on BGP either. We
have an entire class B running in BGP. The only thing this fellow could be
remotely referring to, is the MAX hop command on EBGP that allows only up to
255 hops to connect to an external BGP neighbor.
http://www.
If my ISP told me that, I wouldn't believe another thing they had to say.
BGPv4
supports CIDR and Classful addressing. It will advertise whatever address
range
you tell it to, with whatever mask you provide. Perhaps the ISP was really
talking about their own policies, with regard to address spa
>Scenario:
>Let's say you have a class C subnet that you break off into two smaller
>networks:
>
>1.1.1.0/24 = 1.1.1.0/25 + 1.1.1.128/25
>
>Problem:
>You are announcing this through BGP, but your provider only allows you to
>advertise full class C addresses. The problem lies in that you have to
>
Whitaker,
The easier way would be to use the null route or as it
better referred to as the blackhole route. Of course if you're routing
traffic for the subnets /25 then your igp would have picked up the those
subnets. The use of any of the various commands "redistribute connected
Tony Li, the author of RFC 1771, can tell you a lot..
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1771.txt
So can Bassam Halabi, author of Internet Routing Architectures
Here is a good link on CCO
http://www.cisco.com/cpress/cc/td/cpress/fund/ith2nd/it2435.htm
John Stewart, author of BGP4, Interdomain Rout
-map
> feature?
>
> ( quick look in the book - yes, there it is, page 354 )
>
> Chuck
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Ji
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Daniel Ji
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 12:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP question - Multihoming
ask your provider1 NOT to aggregate your /23 block, instead advertise it
alone, AND put more AS
The problem is that you do not have provider independent space, and
therefore you are breaking CIDR rules when you advertise the more specific
route through provider B.
So... out on the internet, there are two routes appearing in everyone's BGP
tables. One is to provider A's aggregate. The other
Title: RE: BGP question - Multihoming
You can ask both of your providers to use manipulated weight to set the route preference on the ASBR's connecting to your network.
MED, Multi Exit Descriminator can be used.
Can you explain your scenario more clearly using ip form
ask your provider1 NOT to aggregate your /23 block, instead advertise it
alone, AND put more AS # in your updates to provider2 so as to make the
route(AS_path) longer for them to reach you.
hope help.
Dan.
""Martin-Guy Richard"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAI
t;Howard C. Berkowitz"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BGP Question
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:13:28 -0400
At 09:14 AM 9/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>From Reading the RFC, it seems the the Multi-Exit-Discriminator and the
>Local-Preference fields do the same thing. Additionally, it appea
At 09:14 AM 9/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> From Reading the RFC, it seems the the Multi-Exit-Discriminator and the
> Local-Preference fields do the same thing. Additionally, it appears that
> they are not redistributed outside of their Home A/s.
>
>Questions:
>1. What's the difference between th
Title: RE: BGP question
Hi,
From my own research/study on BGP i recall that:
Local Preference - preference given to a BGP route to compare it with other routes TO THE SAME destination.
Since this is LOCAL to the AS, it does NOT get passed to EBGP neighbors. You use this
The route will be advertized out the bgp router , other routers will recieve
the route and update it in its routing table. When a packets is destined to
that network the router will forward the packet to the bgp router which was
originally avertizing the route. When the originating router get the
Internet Routing Architecture - by Bassam Halabi - ISBN 1562056522
rb
>From: Dan West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Dan West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: BGP question
>Date: Fr
Thanks for the information. Just for other readers
note, BGP is not included in Routing TCP/IP...that's
why I asked about BGP specifically. ;)
--- "Raymond Everson (Rainman)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There are TWO, and ONLY two books comprehensive
> enough to be referred to
> as the "burning
This BGP gizmo looks rather intriguing...Can anyone
recommed ONE comprehensive, well-written book on iBGP
and eBGP?
Many thanks. ( from myself and elgrande.com)
--- "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Sounds like you guys were doing IBGP...
>
>
> Could be, but there are severa
>Sounds like you guys were doing IBGP...
Could be, but there are several other explanations.
Let me go into the underlying rationale. According to RFC1930, which
is a must-read in understanding BGP, an AS is a set of addresses and
routers, under one or more administrations, that presents a c
Actually, it sounds like their address space was registered in
RADB with there origin being there Telco ISP.
The traceroute you used (probably prtraceroute) looks up
addresses in RADB to determine there origin AS.
So, to Dan West, you are not misunderstanding the purpose
of the AS number in B
Their ISP may also have used BGP Confederations at the edge to those
customers?
Darren
Brad Ellis wrote:
> Sounds like you guys were doing IBGP...
>
> -B
> "Dan West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My former employer (an ISP) had BGP peer
Sounds like you guys were doing IBGP...
-B
"Dan West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My former employer (an ISP) had BGP peering with our
> upstream provider(Telco). As I understand it so far,
> BGP4 is used to advertise routes between autonomo
To set up peers in BGP, one of the two will use the IP address from the
other AS becaue the link must be on the same subnet, and that subnet's IP
address block must belong to one of the two. That's probably what you saw
when you did the traceroute. You should see a different IP address block if
>"Michael Fountain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>If you have an ISP assigned address that you are using, can you
>advertise that address out to another ISP?? Or if you want
>redundancy do you have to get your own registered IP range and then
>BGP advertise that through two ISPs?
To coin a
If you have an ISP assigned address that you are using, can you advertise
that address out to another ISP?? Or if you want redundancy do you have to
get your own registered IP range and then BGP advertise that through two
ISPs?
>
>
>See comments below:
>
> > I haven't worked with BGP yet, so
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
