essage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil
Bedard
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:37 AM
To: Suzan S.
Cc: Cielieska Nathan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RIB_failure
Backdoor is used for the opposite scenario, where you want t
Backdoor is used for the opposite scenario, where you want to use IGP
routes over EBGP routes, which by default have a lower admin
distance. You use the backdoor statement to set the EBGP route
distance to 200, the same as an IBGP learned route.
Phil
On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Suzan S.
Dear Cielieska,
But is it recomended to change the administrative distance?
Some guys suggested to add the network backdoor command to solve the problem
which is better than changing the adminstrative distance.
Thank you
Suzan
Cielieska Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suzan,
If the ultimate goal is "no BGP rib-failure" then yes. If the end
goal is to steer traffic a certain direction then that may or may not
be a proper solution. I don't have the whole scenario so I can't say
for sure.
Phil
On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Suzan S. wrote:
> I think we will loo
I think we will loose points if we are getting RIB-Failure routes in the lab
exam, so I think we have to prefer the BGP routes and to change the
administrative distance for the iBGP routes! Is this the right solution?
Thanks
Phil Bedard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What are you tryi
What are you trying to accomplish exactly? If you want to use the BGP
routes as primary versus the IGP routes, you can set the
administrative distance higher for the IGP learned routes. Suppress-
inactive will keep the BGP peer from re-advertising those RIB-failure
routes to another peer.
Dears,
When advertiseing the loopbacks in the bgp , they appear as RIB-failure
routes in the BGP table as they are advertised through the IGP which has better
adminstrative distance. Any one knows how to solve the problem of these
RIB-failure Routes? Do we have to change the administrative
