My Bad typo error...
Thanks to all...
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Sean Clarke wrote:
> Yes that's a solution, or workaround - but why do you want to prepend to
> your internal peers ? Surely it only makes sense to prepend out of your
> network, and use local preference to your internal
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:56:29 -0700
From: Hoogen
To: Sean Clarke
Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP EBGP Case Study...
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag
Yes that's a solution, or workaround - but why do you want to prepend to
your internal peers ? Surely it only makes sense to prepend out of your
network, and use local preference to your internal peers ?
cheers
Sean
On 10/29/09 11:29 PM, Hoogen wrote:
I guess for the solution to work we need
Hoogen,
Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag
them with a community and prepend them with as number 65412 twice...
I notice that when I deactivate that.. It works.. So obviously R3 is
considering the routes received from R1 with prepend of 65412 for
I guess for the solution to work we need to have
autonomous-system 65001 loops 3;
This would make sure we get those routes.
-Hoogen
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Hoogen wrote:
> Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag them
> with a community and prepend them wi
Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag them
with a community and prepend them with as number 65412 twice... I notice
that when I deactivate that.. It works.. So obviously R3 is considering the
routes received from R1 with prepend of 65412 for all P1 routes to be some
s
R1
l...@r1> show configuration routing-options
static {
route 10.0.200.0/24 {
next-hop 10.0.1.102;
no-readvertise;
}
route 192.168.10.0/24 reject;
route 192.168.100.0/24 reject;
route 10.0.0.0/8 {
next-hop 10.0.4.13;
qualified-next-hop 10.0.4.6 {
What is in your ibgp export policy from R1 to R3 ? Are you putting
something in there to cause an issue ?
On 10/29/09 10:43 AM, Hoogen wrote:
Hi Felix,
Thank you for the reply..
I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not
there now.. I still see the issue..
Felix Schueren wrote:
> Hoogen wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> Thank you for the reply..
>>
>> I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not
>> there now.. I still see the issue..
>>
> hm. Do you have an as-loop? routes with as-loops don't show up in the
> rib-in. Please paste r1'
Hoogen wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> Thank you for the reply..
>
> I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not
> there now.. I still see the issue..
>
hm. Do you have an as-loop? routes with as-loops don't show up in the
rib-in. Please paste r1's "protocols bgp" stanza, and do
Hi Felix,
Thank you for the reply..
I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not there
now.. I still see the issue..
I had already checked the hidden routes..and those are not the ones which
are hiding
l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 hidden extensi
Hi Hoogen
>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1
>>
>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 106 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 17 hidden)
>> Prefix Nexthop MED LclprefAS path
>> * 192.168.10.0/24 10.0.6.1 100I
>> * 1
Hoogen,
Hoogen wrote:
>>> Now R3 only receives
>>>
>>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1
>>>
>>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 106 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 17 hidden)
>>> Prefix Nexthop MED LclprefAS path
>>> * 192.168.10.0/24 10
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the reply...
l...@r3# run show route 10.0.5.254
inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden)
+ = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
10.0.5.0/24*[IS-IS/15] 00:23:12, metric 106
> to 10.0.4.14 via ge-0/0/1.200
Are you doing "Next hop self" on R1 to advertise to R3, or are you
trying to send the routes without R3 knowing anything about the eBGP
next-hop 10.0.5.254 ? If the latter, advertise the link between R1 and
P1 passively towards R3
On 10/29/09 9:27 AM, Hoogen wrote:
Well I am working with
Well I am working with my J-Series routers to do most topologies.. This
problem has somehow baffled me alot. Any help is greatly appreciated...
A part of topology.. I think the problem lies somewhere in this...
P1---R1---R3 (Both R1 and R3 are in 65000... and R1 is peering with P1 which
is AS 149
16 matches
Mail list logo
