Yes, that alternate solution is described on page 537.
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 03:47:19PM -0400, devang patel wrote:
Chuck,
How about advertising 10/8 from R3/R4 in IBGP with their physical interface
as a next-hop, as those physical interfaces are the links inside the area,
R1/R2 will have
R1 has no active local aggregate 10.0.0.0/8 route, nor any 10/8 route
in IGP (due to being in a NSSA no-summaries area which only has a
default route for reachability to other areas) or nor any 10/8 route
in BGP, so it can't advertise 10/8 to EBGP peers as required.
To rememdy this, one could:
Chuck,
How about advertising 10/8 from R3/R4 in IBGP with their physical interface
as a next-hop, as those physical interfaces are the links inside the area,
R1/R2 will have routes for that links as intra area or of same level and
that way it will not be an issue? Any comment?
Thanks,
Devang
On
What pages in the study guide are you looking at?
~Chris
My Android sent this message.
On May 8, 2010 9:21 PM, David water dwater2...@gmail.com wrote:
All, I was reading EBGP policy from JNCIP book and came across advertisement
of local subnet summary to EBGP peer where you have IGP area where
Chris, Its Page 529.
--
David W.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Chris Grundemann cgrundem...@gmail.comwrote:
What pages in the study guide are you looking at?
~Chris
My Android sent this message.
On May 8, 2010 9:21 PM, David water dwater2...@gmail.com wrote:
All, I was reading EBGP
All, I was reading EBGP policy from JNCIP book and came across advertisement
of local subnet summary to EBGP peer where you have IGP area where you are
only receiving default. That part looks tricky. Can some one explain it to
make it little easy?
--
David W.
6 matches
Mail list logo
