On 14-8-2010 1:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
Actually, I think he said that it was learned via OSPF and eBGP, and that these
routers were preferring the eBGP route.
Correct.
What I don't understand is why the OSPF route is not more specific? Or is this
another case of announcing /24s (or even
On 14/08/2010, at 11:09 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
What I don't understand is why the OSPF route is not more specific? Or is
this another case of announcing /24s (or even smaller blocks) via eBGP?
It is just the same /24 route belonging to one internet exchange. Most IX
prefixes are
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
It is just the same /24 route belonging to one internet exchange. Most
IX prefixes are forbidden to be announced, but this one is unfortunately
the exception :/
1. Filter IX prefixes inbound from peers.
2. Change the administrative distance per
On 14-8-2010 1:07, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Well now. Cisco has for many years recommended having the *same*
administrative distance for iBGP and eBGP, as in
distance bgp 200 200 200
Wouldn't this accomplish what you need?
Steinar,
Could you point me to any link with such recommendations?
Well now. Cisco has for many years recommended having the *same*
administrative distance for iBGP and eBGP, as in
distance bgp 200 200 200
Wouldn't this accomplish what you need?
Steinar,
Could you point me to any link with such recommendations? And if they,
as you say, have
Grzegorz,
Usually, you'd want to do hot potato routing and prefer your
eBGP route over the on in your OSPF table. This comes from the
assumption that the entry in your OSPF table actually comes from
outside your organization, your OSPF neighbors are internal, and
the eBGP neighbor is at your
If a router has different sources (different routing protocols) for the
same route, it chooses the one with the smallest administrative distance:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094195.shtml
The problem in short: there is a pretty big network with many
I believe BGP backdoor would help technically. I say technically because
in your situation it may be too demanding to implement (you mention many
routers) and may not scale well with your needs.
Take a look at BGP backdoor and decide by yourself:
The problem in short: there is a pretty big network with many routers,
Cisco only. One of them has a network connected which it redistributes
to OSPF. All other routers see the route via OSPF and via eBGP. Because
of default administrative distance values, eBGP route always wins, so
the
$quoted_author = sth...@nethelp.no ;
Well now. Cisco has for many years recommended having the *same*
administrative distance for iBGP and eBGP, as in
distance bgp 200 200 200
Wouldn't this accomplish what you need?
I think his issue was that the subnet was connected, not learnt via
On 14/08/2010, at 1:25 AM, Martin Barry wrote:
I think his issue was that the subnet was connected, not learnt via BGP. So
the two resolutions I see are:
- inject it into iBGP
- use the backdoor config already suggested
Actually, I think he said that it was learned via OSPF and eBGP,
11 matches
Mail list logo
