Dear Fred
Wow, um, err, no offense, but you're a CCNP? And confused about the concept
of a route table?
everyone could get confused about anything :). especially in some
2 or 3 am morning. first sorry about that.
There can't be the same route for BGP and a static in the
active routing table
er.Sorry about that!
I Think i make a mistake, I did no see two same routes from two different
routing protocols. in fact, one is 61.168.0.0,another
is 161.168.0.0 .
really sorry for put so much trouble on you.
everything comes from my experiments's wrong result.
the wrong result comes to
Dear Zsombor:
You can't put the same interface into multiple OSPF processes but that
doesn't mean that the two processes can't learn about the same network.
if you can't learn put one interface into multiple OSPF processes,
then except you redistribute the direct donnected and static, how
could
The process with the lower administrative distance will install the prefix
into the routing table. If the administrative distances are the same (and
they are by default), then the process that comes first will install the
route. In other words, it is not deterministic unless you change the default
sorry , i think what i've said is totally wrong!.god damn.
i'am a little dizzy. confused about the concept of route table.
i'am just doing experiments on routers. dizzy.
since the same routes from different protocols can not be present
on the route table , but why do i saw there are the same
Yup, it is a traffic engineering (service specific routing)
problem. MPLS TE might be one way to solve this.I've
honestly not looked at what it would take to get MPLS to
run in this environment.However, enabling MPLS on the
network would be a major undertaking so I've been looking at
So you want to solve a traffic engineering problem with MPLS/TE, huh? How
boring... :)
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I freely admit that I've lost the sense of the problem that
actually
needs to be solved, with all the discussion of the various
tables.
Before my brain started to reboot,
Jason J wrote:
well, in my thoughts, there is no loading balance in ospf.
There is, just not between processes.
it
will choose only one route and put it into its ospf routing
table.
also i got a case: when there is a route from EBGP peer which
is 192.168.0.0/19 and also a route comes
I am not sure what's the significance of the existing routing setup. Is
there a desire to preserve any part of it?
Your new example is pretty much the same as I described the problem, isn't
it? So running BGP over I1 and I2 (just directly to the neighbor routers)
would still work.
Or is the
OSPF process is a per-router thing. You can have two processes on one
router talking to a single process on another router (over two separate
links), for example.
Thanks,
Zsombor
Jason J wrote:
Dear Zsombor:
You can't put the same interface into multiple OSPF processes
but that doesn't
I'm considering a routing architecture where devices in the
network would run ~3 OSPF routing processes.
I think each routing process will be handling the routing
of non-overlapping address blocks and thus the routes they
give to the forwarding table should be disjoint.
However, I'd like to
Here's some more detail.
Yes, assume the destination address (networks) represent
the corresponding service.
This is an existing production network where OSPF and iBGP are
already in use for the existing (single) service. OSPF carries
p2p and loopbacks; iBGP carries customer end-point networks.
:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
well, in my thoughts, there is no loading balance in ospf. it will choose
only one route and put it into its ospf routing table.
also i got a case: when there is a route from EBGP peer which
is 192.168.0.0
Dear Fred
Wow, um, err, no offense, but you're a CCNP? And confused about the concept
of a route table?
everyone could get confused about anything :). especially in some
2 or 3 am morning. first sorry about that.
There can't be the same route for BGP and a static in the
active routing table
Fred is right
all routes from different routing protocals will be put
into route table ,but!! even if they are the same !
and what i mean in the last article is the ospf routing table, not route
table.even there can be more same network link in its ospf database.
the router will choose which
At 6:49 PM + 8/12/03, Zsombor Papp wrote:
So you want to solve a traffic engineering problem with MPLS/TE, huh? How
boring... :)
Hey, if you can't take a joke in this business...
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
I freely admit that I've lost the sense of the problem that
actually
needs to
I freely admit that I've lost the sense of the problem that actually
needs to be solved, with all the discussion of the various tables.
Before my brain started to reboot, however, it sounded like it was a
traffic engineering problem. Has anyone looked at the OSPF Traffic
Engineering
hi
guys, how about if the advertising router has received an update to one of
those same prefixes, how does it know which is which.
thanx
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73881t=73727
--
**Please support GroupStudy
What is advertising router and what are those same prefixes? And where
does it learn them from?
Otherwise it's clear... :)
Thanks,
Zsombor
amer kulaif wrote:
hi
guys, how about if the advertising router has received an
update to one of those same prefixes, how does it know which
is
Lets go down another layer in your proposed BGP solution.
The core topology will be along the lines of 5-10 routers
in a ring. Lets say 7 routers, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and
R7 are connected in a p2p ring topology. Assume that there's
one or more direct connections between R1 and R4.
R4 has
Since you say you want to run one OSPF process for each traffic type, I
assume the type of the traffic is defined by destination IP address. If this
is not correct, then I would be curious to know what a traffic type is and
how you will associate a traffic type with an OSPF process.
If however my
Jason J wrote:
Fred is right
all routes from different routing protocals will be put
into route table ,but!! even if they are the same !
Would be surprising. IMHO one route (meaning a prefix+mask combo) can be
installed only by one routing process. Can you post some 'show ip route'
output
No, I don't think there will be any
load balancing even in the same ospf
processes.
thanks
Jason J CCNP P.R.C
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=73784t=73727
--
**Please support GroupStudy by purchasing from the
Dear Zsombor:
You can't put the same interface into multiple OSPF processes but that
doesn't mean that the two processes can't learn about the same network.
if you can't learn put one interface into multiple OSPF processes,
then except you redistribute the direct donnected and static, how
could
, print
or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
er.Sorry about
, print
or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
er.Sorry about
delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 10:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
Dear Fred
in fact, 192.168.0.0/18 does include 192.168.0.0/19
Yeh, you are righ, Zsombor. in fact, i just want to say that .for
192.168.0.0/24---192.168.31.0/24 ,the router will use 192.168.0.0/19
from EBGP,not the static one 192.168.0.0/18.
also if you tyep show ip route 192.168.0.0 , the router show u
the 192.168.0.0/19.
By the way ,i just understand
Here's some more detail.
Yes, assume the destination address (networks) represent
the corresponding service.
This is an existing production network where OSPF and iBGP are
already in use for the existing (single) service. OSPF carries
p2p and loopbacks; iBGP carries customer end-point networks.
Here's some more detail.
Yes, assume the destination address (networks) represent
the corresponding service.
This is an existing production network where OSPF and iBGP are
already in use for the existing (single) service. OSPF carries
p2p and loopbacks; iBGP carries customer end-point networks.
I assume you meant R4 not R1 here:
Assume that R1 is connected to another cloud of routers and
that traffic to networks A, B, and C will originate from this
other cloud.
And you didn't say what should happen if both the R1-R2-R3-R4 and
R1-R7-R6-R5-R4 path are unavailable, so I will assume
er.Sorry about that!
I Think i make a mistake, I did no see two same routes from two different
routing protocols. in fact, one is 61.168.0.0,another
is 161.168.0.0 .
really sorry for put so much trouble on you.
everything comes from my experiments's wrong result.
the wrong result comes to
, print
or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 3:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
er.Sorry about
er.Sorry about that!
I Think i make a mistake, I did no see two same routes from two different
routing protocols. in fact, one is 61.168.0.0,another
is 161.168.0.0 .
really sorry for put so much trouble on you.
everything comes from my experiments's wrong result.
the wrong result comes to
well, in my thoughts, there is no loading balance in ospf. it will choose
only one route and put it into its ospf routing table.
also i got a case: when there is a route from EBGP peer which
is 192.168.0.0/19 and also a route comes from static input which is
192.168.0.0/18, which one do you think
immediately delete it from your computer.
-Original Message-
From: Jason J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: multiple ospf processes route insertion [7:73727]
sorry , i think what i've said is totally wrong!.god damn.
i'am
Using multiple processes might provide a way to implement
policy at the link level. Typically, when one thinks of policy,
one thinks of BGP. But what if your policy requires the ability
to control what traffic can or can't go over a particular
link? For example, consider two routers, that are
Dear Fred
in fact, 192.168.0.0/18 does include 192.168.0.0/19 and
192.168.32.0/19.wherenever router choose route, it will always pick the most
concrete one so even 192.168.0.0/18 is static, it will choose
the one from EBGP, 192.168.0.0/19.
when the route from EBG is 192.168.0.0/18 and
38 matches
Mail list logo
