On Thursday, February 23, 2012 04:24:52 PM Scott Harvanek
wrote:
> I should have notated that we got this corrected.
>
> The issue was the Cisco was not sending a label for the
> Juniper loopback address as that loopback wasn't
> populating into OSPF as a /32 properly, once we fixed
> that up it
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 02:55:44 PM Chris Kawchuk
wrote:
> Naturally a prefix-limit would have helped; or a
> route-filter prefix-list... alas apparently neither of
> these were in effect.
I can't say I'm surprised that even these days, such basic
features across customer/peer-provider e
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:25:59 PM Patrick Okui
wrote:
> Put those two together and there's good reason to set the
> AD for both iBGP and eBGP to say 200 (the default AD for
> iBGP and higher than any IGP). IMHO Juniper's default
> preference settings make more sense.
Exactly!
Of cours
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 09:18:18 PM Phil Mayers
wrote:
> Interesting. I'd not heard that one before. What's the
> rationale?
Two reasons:
a) Make BGP distance the same.
b) Make BGP distance greater than any IGP (bad
things could happen if your traffic is taki
4 matches
Mail list logo
