Re: [j-nsp] MX480 - 10.4R4.5 BGP

2013-01-16 Thread David Miller
On 1/16/2013 10:11 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Keith wrote: > >> Peer #1 - all 4 networks are prepended with our AS 5 times: > > Okay so far... > >> This way I have two networks coming in on one gig link and the other two >> networks are coming in over the other gig link. >

Re: [j-nsp] MX480 - 10.4R4.5 BGP

2013-01-16 Thread Brandon Ross
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Keith wrote: Peer #1 - all 4 networks are prepended with our AS 5 times: Okay so far... This way I have two networks coming in on one gig link and the other two networks are coming in over the other gig link. No, you don't. You have all 4 networks coming in on all 4 l

Re: [j-nsp] MX480 - 10.4R4.5 BGP

2013-01-16 Thread Diogo Montagner
>Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3? Probably, yes. Do a show route extensive in few inactive prefix and it will tell you the reason why it is in inactive state. >What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2 and 3 on our traffic?

[j-nsp] MX480 - 10.4R4.5 BGP

2013-01-16 Thread Keith
Try to make this short. I don't have any gear that I can run in a lab setting to really get to know how Juniper BGP stuff works so we get some help and they give me access to an MX to play on once in a while. Have 3 BGP peers. Have four networks we are announcing. Peer #1 - all 4 networks are pr