is to make eBGP session with regional ISPs on their
> local POP switch and distribute their prefixes to other ISPs connected
> there. To make some kind of Internet Exchange on regional level or even
> national level for our customers.
>
> As far as I know, all routers (BGP running sw
refixes to other ISPs connected
there. To make some kind of Internet Exchange on regional level or even
national level for our customers.
As far as I know, all routers (BGP running switches) in a single AS,
should be connected via iBGP (If I am not mistaken, it is called full
mesh). But, on ma
t; >
> > rtr-a and rtr-b have static routes to those networks, and they have
> > network statements in bgpd.conf to announce them to their ibgp peers
> > ("network 172.24.232.0/21 set nexthop XXX" etc) so the paths are reachable
> > from the rest of the networ
;oldest path" or the "lowest bgp id" criteria.
>
> As only one route is a best route, that one will be annouced to the
> neighbors. However this is IBGP. In a set of IBGP connected routers, a
> router will not announce a route to other IBGP peers that it received from
> o
Benoit
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 3:38 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: bgpd, announce to ibgp from 2 routers, prefixes only show up from 1
Stuart Henderson(s...@spacehopper.org) on 2021.11.13 00:11:08 +:
> I have a pair of -current routers running bgpd (let's call them rt
bgpd.conf to announce them to their ibgp peers
> ("network 172.24.232.0/21 set nexthop XXX" etc) so the paths are reachable
> from the rest of the network. (This is replacing an existing setup using
> ospf, trying to remove routing protocols from machines that don't really
&g
sing
> as default route. There are some networks behind the vpn gateways (a
> /32 to accept incoming vpn connections and some other prefixes that vpn
> clients are numbered from).
>
> rtr-a and rtr-b have static routes to those networks, and they have
> network statements in bgpd.
ccept incoming vpn connections and some other prefixes that vpn
clients are numbered from).
rtr-a and rtr-b have static routes to those networks, and they have
network statements in bgpd.conf to announce them to their ibgp peers
("network 172.24.232.0/21 set nexthop XXX" etc) so the paths are
RIB of route-reflector clients even after dropping the originating
> > neighbor.
> >
> > I'm on OpenBSD 6.4, running MPLS L3VPN.
> >
> > I have 2 IBGP route-reflectors, both OpenBSD 6.4.
> > I run OSPF to distribute Loopbacks into an Area (100)
> > We run
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 05:08:32PM -0400, Henry Bonath wrote:
> Hello, I am seeing some BGP VPNv4 routes staying populated in
> the RIB of route-reflector clients even after dropping the originating
> neighbor.
>
> I'm on OpenBSD 6.4, running MPLS L3VPN.
>
> I have 2 I
t 22:11, Henry Bonath wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I am seeing some BGP VPNv4 routes staying populated in
> > the RIB of route-reflector clients even after dropping the originating
> neighbor.
> >
> > I'm on OpenBSD 6.4, running MPLS L3VPN.
> >
> > I ha
Hello, I am seeing some BGP VPNv4 routes staying populated in
> the RIB of route-reflector clients even after dropping the originating
> neighbor.
>
> I'm on OpenBSD 6.4, running MPLS L3VPN.
>
> I have 2 IBGP route-reflectors, both OpenBSD 6.4.
> I run OSPF to distribute L
Hello, I am seeing some BGP VPNv4 routes staying populated in
the RIB of route-reflector clients even after dropping the originating neighbor.
I'm on OpenBSD 6.4, running MPLS L3VPN.
I have 2 IBGP route-reflectors, both OpenBSD 6.4.
I run OSPF to distribute Loopbacks into an Area (100)
W
I have an iBGP learned route that Iâm trying to advertise to an eBGP peer in
OpenBGPD. I set up announce all, but my neighbor does not see the route. If
I do an explicit network statement my peer obviously sees the route, but I
want it to advertise the learned route instead.
Here is my
Hi Stuart,
I have tried with a carp netmask equal to the physical interface (/24
for example in my lab) and a /32 (like when you have many CARP IP
addresses).
From investigation the problem seems to occur because when a box is the
carp master, their will be a /32 route in the routing table f
On 2014-04-01, Andy wrote:
> Specifically to accommodate CARP interfaces, to allow setting the
> nexthop on an announced route to a CARP IP address?
>
> This currently doesn't work as OpenBGPD considers the CARP interface as
> being a different network to the physical interface, even though they
On Tue 01 Apr 2014 10:27:03 BST, Andy wrote:
On Tue 01 Apr 2014 10:10:02 BST, Andy wrote:
Hi Claudio and Stuart, thanks for your replies.
On Mon 31 Mar 2014 22:29:47 BST, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 07:59:19PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2014/03/31 09:31, Andy wrote:
H
On Tue 01 Apr 2014 10:10:02 BST, Andy wrote:
Hi Claudio and Stuart, thanks for your replies.
On Mon 31 Mar 2014 22:29:47 BST, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 07:59:19PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2014/03/31 09:31, Andy wrote:
Hi Stuart,
Does Henning, Claudio or any of the
Definitely agree Theo. Our topology is less than ideal just to ensure
we have OSPF's fast convergence changing the nexthops of our intra-AS
routers for what are otherwise BGP routes.
Whilst people say bird 1.4 supports BFD, BIRD is generally used on
Linux route servers (not forwarding traffic)
Hi Claudio and Stuart, thanks for your replies.
On Mon 31 Mar 2014 22:29:47 BST, Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 07:59:19PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2014/03/31 09:31, Andy wrote:
Hi Stuart,
Does Henning, Claudio or any of the other developers have any plan to
implement B
> There is also a GSoC project to get BFD into OpenBSD. So if a student is
> interested in working on that that would be an oportunity.
Honestly, I think many people are building hacks because they lack a
carefully-integrated BFD. If we had it, it would not solve fair-share
problems, but it would
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 07:59:19PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/03/31 09:31, Andy wrote:
> > Hi Stuart,
> >
> > Does Henning, Claudio or any of the other developers have any plan to
> > implement BGP equal cost multi-path support (maximum-paths) to OpenBGPd?
>
> No idea about anyone e
On 2014/03/31 09:31, Andy wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Does Henning, Claudio or any of the other developers have any plan to
> implement BGP equal cost multi-path support (maximum-paths) to OpenBGPd?
No idea about anyone else's plans...
> I guess it should be quite quick to add as OpenOSPFd already s
Hi Stuart,
Does Henning, Claudio or any of the other developers have any plan to
implement BGP equal cost multi-path support (maximum-paths) to OpenBGPd?
I guess it should be quite quick to add as OpenOSPFd already supports
this and the kernel FIB is ready.
Actually quite surprised this isn
On 2014-03-29, Andy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is OpenBGPD capable of inserting equal cost multi-path routes into the
> kernel FIB like OpenOSPFD can?
In a word: no.
Maybe it could be modified to do this, but that's how it is currently.
o use 'maximum-paths n' in OpenBGP to insert
multiple routes into the kernel FIB and use next-hop-self on the iBGP neighbour
ASBR routers connecting to the exchange etc, to achieve full load balancing
across ASBRs.
That would provide a good load distribution but means we also have t
32 vlan202
I therefore of course also have equal cost routes being received into
OpenBGPD's RIB from the two different iBGP peers (the same two ASBR
neighbors as above), for all the networks received via our IXP BGP peerings.
OpenBGPd by default only selects one path to the remote net
; > I have the following scenario
> >> >
> >> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
> >>
> >> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
> >> missing.
> >
> > Really? It's difficult fo
have the following scenario
> >> >
> >> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
> >>
> >> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
> >> missing.
> >
> > Really? It's difficult for me in t
On 2013-02-04, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I am facing a strange behavior,
>> >
>> > I have the following scenario
>> >
>> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<-
Eduardo Meyer(dudu.me...@gmail.com) on 2013.02.04 13:51:25 -0200:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
>
> > make iBGP2 a route server.
> >
>
> Sounds promising, what are the key configurations in bgpd.conf to do so? So
> I can look further.
>
> Are we talking 'bout reflector/
Am 04.02.2013 16:32, schrieb Eduardo Meyer:
> Really? It's difficult for me in this environment, do I have another option?
add a route collector that peers with all ibgp neighbors...
On 4 Feb 2013, at 10:36, Peter Hessler wrote:
> make iBGP2 a route server.
I think this would be a route reflector since you're dealing with iBGP.
Michael
; :> >
> :> > I am facing a strange behavior,
> :> >
> :> > I have the following scenario
> :> >
> :> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
> :>
> :> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 a
do Meyer wrote:
:> > Hello,
:> >
:> > I am facing a strange behavior,
:> >
:> > I have the following scenario
:> >
:> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
:>
:> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 i
the following scenario
> >
> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
>
> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
> missing.
>
--
===
Eduardo Meyer
pessoal: dudu.me...@gmail.com
profissional: ddm.farmac...@saude.gov.br
On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am facing a strange behavior,
>
> I have the following scenario
>
> eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
missing.
Hello,
I am facing a strange behavior,
I have the following scenario
eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
The very first eBGP (eBGP1) is my customer, the later (eBGP2) is my carrier
(WAN).
eBGP1 announces its network successfully to iBGP1, which announces
everything successfuly to iBGP2, but
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 12:52:10PM +0100, Laurent CARON wrote:
> On R1:
> # bgpctl show | egrep '(iv6_gw-001_to_004|ev6_gw-001_to_NERIM)'
> ev6_gw-001_to_NERIM 13193 302495 94094 0 01w3d21h 10543
> iv6_gw-001_to_004 49463 317993 154496 0 00:53:17 2
Hi,
I d
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:23:45AM +0800, Patrick Coleman wrote:
> Is there any reason you need to restrict capabilities like this on
> iBGP? Have you tried removing the the announce IPv6 unicast lines (so
> the announce all inherits from the parent clause) to see what happ
iv6_gw-001_to_004
> local-address 2a02:27d0:0:112::1
> announce IPv6 unicast
Is there any reason you need to restrict capabilities like this on
iBGP? Have you tried removing the the announce IPv6 unicast lines (so
the announce all inherits from the
# multicast
On R1:
# bgpctl show | egrep '(iv6_gw-001_to_004|ev6_gw-001_to_NERIM)'
ev6_gw-001_to_NERIM 13193 302495 94094 0 01w3d21h 10543
iv6_gw-001_to_004 49463 317993 154496 0 00:53:17 2
I receive 10543 IPv6 prefixes from my transit, bu
>First try without "tcp md5sig" and enable it only when it is
>working.
>But I guess your problem is that the other side is expecting the
>connection to come from a different IP than the one selected by
>the route
>lookup. In that case set "local-address 17
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:56:59AM +0100, rh...@hushmail.com wrote:
> Despite having a working OSPF setup and no PF config, I'm seeing
> socket errors in the logs when attempting to establish an IBGP
> session to lo1 on another machine.
>
> # ospfctl sh ne
> ID
Despite having a working OSPF setup and no PF config, I'm seeing
socket errors in the logs when attempting to establish an IBGP
session to lo1 on another machine.
# ospfctl sh ne
ID Pri StateDeadTime Address Iface
Uptime
172.16.101.169 100 FULL/BCKUP
Thanks for the heads up Claudio, will look into it a bit more in light of your
comments.
432i
>
> "bgpctl sh rib" on BSD02 :
> *> 0.0.0.0/0172.16.99.254500065432i
>
This looks right. BSD02 is propegating the route to BSD01 and BSD01
selects that one as more prefered over the non iBGP route.
> (2) With no localpref set on EBGP session on BGP
(1) With "set localpref 500" on EBGP session on BSD02
"bgpctl sh rib" on
BSD01 :
I*>0.0.0.0/0172.16.99.254500065432i
*
0.0.0.0/0172.16.99.254100065432i
"bgpctl sh rib" on BSD02
:
*>0.0.0.0/0172.16.99.254500065432i
(2) With no
lo
Hi,
On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:34:12 +0700, a b wrote:
Hi,
Further to my earlier email, additional experimentation shows that
removal of "set localpref" from my config file on BSD02 allows full mesh
IBGP
to correctly occur. Reinsertion of "set localpref" makes the issue
Hello,
Thank you for your reply.
Ref. your pointing out
> group
>
"transit 65432" {
> set localpref 400
> remote-as $PEER_ASN
> neighbor
$REMOTE_IP {
> descr "EBGP BOX"
> announce self
^
Please
explain why, therefore, when I remove &q
akers in
private ASN 64550 (OSPF running between them as IGP)
EBGP01 is a non OpenBSD
BGP speaker in private ASN 65432 (just sending default route for test
purposes)
BSD01 does not appear to be receiving routes from BSD02 (in this
case, it should be learning a higher pref default route from BSD02
Hi,
Further to my earlier email, additional experimentation shows that
removal of "set localpref" from my config file on BSD02 allows full mesh IBGP
to correctly occur. Reinsertion of "set localpref" makes the issue originally
reported reappear.
IGP)
EBGP01 is a non OpenBSD
BGP speaker in private ASN 65432 (just sending default route for test
purposes)
BSD01 does not appear to be receiving routes from BSD02 (in this
case, it should be learning a higher pref default route from BSD02 over IBGP)
on BSD01 :
# bgpctl show sum
Neighbor
On 08/02/2010 18:41, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Could you give it a spin?
I just tried it and so far it seems successful.
I'll let it run for a few days on my secondary bgp box and upgrade the
primary one if successful.
Many thanks
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Laurent CARON wrote:
> On 30/01/2010 14:59, Laurent CARON wrote:
> >My last test was with current as of 20100119.
> >
> >I did tests with 20091201 and 20091202 because the problem did appear
> >just between those 2 dates and is reproductible.
> >
> >I'll tr
On 30/01/2010 14:59, Laurent CARON wrote:
My last test was with current as of 20100119.
I did tests with 20091201 and 20091202 because the problem did appear
just between those 2 dates and is reproductible.
I'll try to upgrade to current and see if it helps.
Since no commits were done on bgpd
On 30/01/2010 13:49, Claudio Jeker wrote:
I'll have a look at this. Please make sure you test against a -current
bgpd instead of the 20091202 version since I already fixed a few issues
with regard to the AF, AFI/SAFI -> AID commit that was done between
20091201 and 20091202. Currently I have the
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:50:21AM +0100, Laurent CARON wrote:
> On 19/01/2010 14:03, Laurent CARON wrote:
> >On 19/01/2010 13:23, Sebastian Spies wrote:
> >>Seems, that the Cisco doesn't send the initial Keepalive. Could you
> >>please provide a longer caption using -s 4096 and the OPEN messages o
On 19/01/2010 14:03, Laurent CARON wrote:
On 19/01/2010 13:23, Sebastian Spies wrote:
Seems, that the Cisco doesn't send the initial Keepalive. Could you
please provide a longer caption using -s 4096 and the OPEN messages of
20091201
$ tcpdump -s 4096 -w /tmp/bgpd_20091201_4096 -i bge0 host
20
On 19/01/2010 13:23, Sebastian Spies wrote:
Seems, that the Cisco doesn't send the initial Keepalive. Could you
please provide a longer caption using -s 4096 and the OPEN messages of
20091201
$ tcpdump -s 4096 -w /tmp/bgpd_20091201_4096 -i bge0 host 2001:7A8:1:9FF2::1
$ tcpdump -s 4096 -w /tmp/
Laurent CARON wrote:
> On 19/01/2010 12:18, Sebastian Spies wrote:
>> Would you please provide a packet capture?
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://zenon.apartia.fr/stuff/bgpd_20091201 <=> Working announces
> http://zenon.apartia.fr/stuff/bgpd_20091202 <=> Non-Working announces
>
> Captures produced with:
On 19/01/2010 12:18, Sebastian Spies wrote:
Would you please provide a packet capture?
Here you go:
http://zenon.apartia.fr/stuff/bgpd_20091201 <=> Working announces
http://zenon.apartia.fr/stuff/bgpd_20091202 <=> Non-Working announces
Captures produced with:
$ tcpdump -w /tmp/bgpd_20091201 -
Laurent CARON wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 11:48, Laurent CARON wrote:
>> IPv6 works in latest version only on iBGP link and in a tunnel link to
>> hurricane electric but not directly to a cisco peer.
>
> Hi,
>
> I finally managed to track down the date of the commit that
On 09/01/2010 11:48, Laurent CARON wrote:
IPv6 works in latest version only on iBGP link and in a tunnel link to
hurricane electric but not directly to a cisco peer.
Hi,
I finally managed to track down the date of the commit that made the 2nd
IPv6 session fail.
cvs -d$CVSROOT up -D "
prefixes (v4 and v6) are announced on both routers
ISP1---
| |
BGPGW001--IBGP--BGPGW002
| |
ISP2---
IPv6 announcement works for me on my test setup, even accross iBGP
sessi
:/var/log# bgpctl sho rib neigh nerim-ipv6-bgp-peer out
> flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
> origin: i = IGP, e = EGP, ? = Incomplete
>
> flags destination gateway lpref med aspath origin
> AI*> 2001:7a8:820::/44 ::
/d74d05557
Strangeness:
On peer bgpgw-001: v4 and v6 networks are announced. On bgpgw-002 v6
networks are received from bgpgw-001 but not announced.
bgpgw-001:/var/log# bgpctl sho rib neigh nerim-ipv6-bgp-peer out
flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
origin: i = IGP, e =
and v6 networks are announced. On bgpgw-002 v6
networks are received from bgpgw-001 but not announced.
bgpgw-001:/var/log# bgpctl sho rib neigh nerim-ipv6-bgp-peer out
flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
origin: i = IGP, e = EGP, ? = Incomplete
flags destinat
On 05/01/2010 16:39, Laurent CARON wrote:
Strangeness:
On peer bgpgw-001: v4 and v6 networks are announced. On bgpgw-002 v6
networks are received from bgpgw-001 but not announced.
bgpgw-001:/var/log# bgpctl sho rib neigh nerim-ipv6-bgp-peer out
flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP
Hi Misc@,
Right now i'm playin' with bgpd filter setup. I've successfully create an
ebgp between another obsd4.3-current and ibgp between a fbsd/zebra.
I understand on most ibgp implementation (ciscoz/quagga), prefixes from
ebgp peer are more preferred than ibgp. But that isn&#
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:50:42 +0700, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2008/01/21 21:36, Insan Praja SW wrote:
Currently I'm setting up ibgp session between quagga and openbgpd, I got
it up, but it seem no route injected to the fib, when I traced to an
address learned
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:50:42 +0700, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2008/01/21 21:36, Insan Praja SW wrote:
Currently I'm setting up ibgp session between quagga and openbgpd, I got
it up, but it seem no route injected to the fib, when I traced to an
address learned
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:50:42 +0700, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2008/01/21 21:36, Insan Praja SW wrote:
Currently I'm setting up ibgp session between quagga and openbgpd, I got
it up, but it seem no route injected to the fib, when I traced to an
address learned
On 2008/01/21 21:36, Insan Praja SW wrote:
> Currently I'm setting up ibgp session between quagga and openbgpd, I got
> it up, but it seem no route injected to the fib, when I traced to an
> address learned from quagga, it still choose default route and using
> "bgpctl fib
Dear Misc@,
Currently I'm setting up ibgp session between quagga and openbgpd, I got
it up, but it seem no route injected to the fib, when I traced to an
address learned from quagga, it still choose default route and using
"bgpctl fib couple" and "bgpctl -n reload" is
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:00:37PM -0800, Tom Bombadil wrote:
> Greetings...
>
> We are trying to use a couple routers with carp and uplinks with 2
> different providers. One router as master and another one slave. The
> slave getting all the routes from the master using IBGP.
>
Tom Bombadil ??:
Greetings...
We are trying to use a couple routers with carp and uplinks with 2
different providers. One router as master and another one slave. The
slave getting all the routes from the master using IBGP.
The problem is that when I bring to interface of the master down to
Greetings...
We are trying to use a couple routers with carp and uplinks with 2
different providers. One router as master and another one slave. The
slave getting all the routes from the master using IBGP.
The problem is that when I bring to interface of the master down to test
if the failover
uters to 4.1, then updated to 4.1-stable.
>
> hmmm... all affected machines on my side are 4.1-stable as of May 24th.
>
> > My two borders have now the full tables from each other (iBGP), plus the
> > full route from the peer it's attached to (eBGP).
> >
e 4.1-stable as of May 24th.
> My two borders have now the full tables from each other (iBGP), plus the
> full route from the peer it's attached to (eBGP).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# bgpctl sh sum
>
>
> Neighbor ASMsgRcvdMsgSentOutQ U
Claudio Jeker a icrit :
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:56:02PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I've got a setup on two i386 family PCs with 4.1-stable which includes
the following:
Internet 1 - p1 - r1 -- r2 - p2 - Internet 2
r1 and r2 have an iBGP session running, and the Int
Hi Claudio,
On Fri, 03.08.2007 at 20:57:43 +0200, Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is more or less expected. iBGP session only transmit eBGP pathes that
> are valid and best for the router. So on r2 you have all the iBGP routes
> from r1 and r2 has no reason to send
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 07:56:02PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a setup on two i386 family PCs with 4.1-stable which includes
> the following:
>
> Internet 1 - p1 - r1 -- r2 - p2 - Internet 2
>
> r1 and r2 have an iBGP session running,
Hi,
I've got a setup on two i386 family PCs with 4.1-stable which includes
the following:
Internet 1 - p1 - r1 -- r2 - p2 - Internet 2
r1 and r2 have an iBGP session running, and the Internet connections go
to different ISPs, running eBGP on each (r1-p1, r2-p2). I receive
On 2007/03/28 17:52, rezidue wrote:
> When the hosts connect to each other a full prefix table is sent but then
> almost immediately it's neighbor starts withdrawing prefixes. On one host I
> jump from 210k prefixes in the initial connection to only 59k after all of
> the withdrawals. On the othe
* rezidue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-29 01:10]:
> I guess I should start from the beginning. When I originally started this
> project my goal was to have two machines running carp between them and have
> the master connect to two different ISP's sending full routes. This was
> working fine and
I decided to split the
peering between the two servers, not have bgpd rely on carp and just use
carp for my gateway. With this in place I started workign on ibgp between
the boxes to make sure that no matter where my default route went, the host
would send me through the best provider be it directl
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:24:57PM +0100, Dunc wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to configure an OpenBSD box as a BGP route reflector.
I have an iBGP peer configured to one of our core routers which has an eBGP
session to one of our providers. I have configured that nei
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:24:57PM +0100, Dunc wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to configure an OpenBSD box as a BGP route reflector.
>
> I have an iBGP peer configured to one of our core routers which has an eBGP
> session to one of our providers. I have configured
Hi all,
I'm trying to configure an OpenBSD box as a BGP route reflector.
I have an iBGP peer configured to one of our core routers which has an eBGP
session to one of our providers. I have configured that neighbor with the
"route-reflector" option in bgpd.conf. If I log updates
runs quagga.
A config in a router looks like this:
cr203-STO# cat /etc/bgpd.conf
# $OpenBSD: bgpd.conf,v 1.7 2004/10/01 15:12:16 henning Exp $
# sample bgpd configuration file
# see bgpd.conf(5)
AS 65000
router-id 10.0.0.2
network connected
network static
network 10.0.0.2/32
group
Jesper Louis Andersen wrote:
per engelbrecht wrote:
Q: setting up iBGP I've used our own AS as 'remote-as' but can't find
a 'no synchronization' option for this connection. Do I need it at all.
Been poking around in /usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd without solving it, but
per engelbrecht wrote:
Q: setting up iBGP I've used our own AS as 'remote-as' but can't find a
'no synchronization' option for this connection. Do I need it at all.
Been poking around in /usr/src/usr.sbin/bgpd without solving it, but
it's needed in zebra a
* per engelbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-02 00:52]:
> I've made a setup with two identical bgp routers. On each router there's
> 3 peers (BGP and eBGP), one failover (carp/iBGP/ospf) interconnecting
> these routers and finally pipes backwards to the internal n
* Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-02 12:04]:
> If both bgpd and ospfd try to add the same route to the kernel routing table
> it will result in undefined behaviour. (mostly the first one wins).
that is not true. there is no undefined behaviour.
first one wins.
> Again this is on the to
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:34:29AM +0100, per engelbrecht wrote:
Hi all
[20051019 snap i386]
I've made a setup with two identical bgp routers. On each router there's
3 peers (BGP and eBGP), one failover (carp/iBGP/ospf) interconnecting
these routers and fin
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 12:34:29AM +0100, per engelbrecht wrote:
> Hi all
>
> [20051019 snap i386]
>
> I've made a setup with two identical bgp routers. On each router there's
> 3 peers (BGP and eBGP), one failover (carp/iBGP/ospf) interconnecting
> these routers
Hi all
[20051019 snap i386]
I've made a setup with two identical bgp routers. On each router there's
3 peers (BGP and eBGP), one failover (carp/iBGP/ospf) interconnecting
these routers and finally pipes backwards to the internal nets. Part of
bgpd.conf further down.
I'm rep
Hi all
[20051019 snap i386]
I've made a setup with two identical bgp routers. On each router there's
3 peers (BGP and eBGP), one failover (carp/iBGP/ospf) interconnecting
these routers and finally pipes backwards to the internal nets. Part of
bgpd.conf further down.
I'm rep
99 matches
Mail list logo
