From: Jack Heney (jheneyccie@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Nov 07 2000 - 18:27:42 GMT-3
That would make sense...I'm using 12.07t
>From: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
>Reply-To: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
>To: "Jack Heney" <jheneyccie@hotmail.com>, <Steve.McNutt@ahlcorp.com>,
><ejastak@gobosh.cc>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: BGP Route-maps
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:24:18 -0600
>
>O.K. Here is comes from 12.1.4 IOS experiment.
>R1 knows about bunch of subnets by IBGP from it's neighbor.
>Using Route-map on R1 we match 192.168.11.0 segment and set local
>preference
>for that subnet to 200.
>
>router bgp 1
> no synchronization
> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> neighbor 132.5.5.5 remote-as 1
> neighbor 132.5.5.5 update-source Loopback9
> neighbor 132.5.5.5 route-map inbound in
> neighbor 132.5.6.6 remote-as 1
> neighbor 132.5.6.6 update-source Loopback9
> neighbor 132.5.6.6 route-map inbound in
>!
>ip classless
>no ip http server
>!
>access-list 88 permit 192.168.11.0 0.0.0.255
>route-map inbound permit 10
> match ip address 88
> set local-preference 200
>!
>route-map inbound permit 20
>
>Following is BGP table.
>
>BGP table version is 6, local router ID is 132.5.1.1
>Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
>internal
>Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
>
> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
>*>i1.1.1.1/32 150.100.1.1 0 100 0 7 i
>*>i192.168.2.0 150.100.1.1 0 100 0 7 i
>*>i192.168.3.0 150.100.1.1 0 100 0 7 i
>*>i192.168.4.0 150.100.1.1 0 100 0 7 i
>*>i192.168.11.0 132.5.6.6 0 200 0 i
>
>It still works. Looks like this is IOS version issue. What IOS are you
>working with?
>
>Sam
>
> > Another experiment that might make this more clear is instead of trying
>to
> > permit or deny routes, send an IBGP peer to routes using BGP and on the
> > peer, try to change the local preference of just one of the routes using
>an
> > inbound route-map and match ip address. You'll find that no matter what
>you
> > do, both routes will always get the same local preference.
> > >
> > >I had the same experience as Steve....It appears to me that this rule
>only
> > >applies to IBGP...Here's what I did:
> > >
> > >R1-------------R2--------------R3-------------
> > > 10.4.2.0/24 10.4.1.0/24
> > >
> > >I put R1 in BGP AS 1 and R2 and R3 in BGP AS 2
> > >R3 is injecting both attached networks into BGP
> > >R2 has synchronization disabled
> > >
> > >First, I created the following route-map on R2 and applied it inbound
>to
>R3
> > >(ibgp):
> > >route-map cisco deny 10
> > > match ip address 1
> > >route-map cisco permit 20
> > >
> > >access-list 1 permit 10.4.1.0 0.0.0.255
> > >
> > >I expected to see only 10.4.1.0/24 denied, but instead both routes were
> > >denied...It appears that the router ignored the match statement
>(because
>it
> > >referenced an IP address) and becuase there was no other match
>statement,
> > >both routes matched the first clause and were denied.
> > >
> > >Then, I removed this route-map from R2 and created the exect same
>route-map
> > >on R1 and applied it inbound to R2 (ebgp). R1 learned about the
> > >10.4.2.0/24
> > >network, but not the 10.4.1.0/24 network. When I debug bgp in and
>debug
> > >bgp
> > >update, the router indicates that the route-map has filtered the
> > >10.4.1.0/24
> > >route.
> > >
> > >I think this is a pretty simple yet effective experiment, and I would
>love
> > >to know what somebody else sees if they replicate it (maybe I'm missing
> > >something).
> > >Jack
> > >>From: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
> > >>Reply-To: "Sam Munzani" <sam@munzani.com>
> > >>To: "McNutt, Steve" <Steve.McNutt@ahlcorp.com>, "'Eric Jastak'"
> > >><ejastak@gobosh.cc>
> > >>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >>Subject: Re: BGP Route-maps
> > >>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:53:36 -0600
> > >>
> > >>Not really. Here is my configs and bgp table.
> > >>
> > >>First is with route-map with filters. Then I removed route-map with
>filter
> > >>and you will see 192.168.1.0/24 in bgp table.
> > >>
> > >>Config with route-map inbound filters:
> > >>router bgp 1
> > >>
> > >>no synchronization
> > >>
> > >>bgp log-neighbor-changes
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.5.5 remote-as 1
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.5.5 update-source Loopback9
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.5.5 route-map inbound in
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.6.6 remote-as 1
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.6.6 update-source Loopback9
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.6.6 route-map inbound in
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.129.2 remote-as 4
> > >>
> > >>!
> > >>
> > >>!
> > >>
> > >>access-list 99 deny 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255
> > >>
> > >>access-list 99 permit any
> > >>
> > >>route-map inbound permit 10
> > >>
> > >>match ip address 99
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Config without Route-map inbound filters:
> > >>
> > >>router bgp 1
> > >>
> > >>no synchronization
> > >>
> > >>bgp log-neighbor-changes
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.5.5 remote-as 1
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.5.5 update-source Loopback9
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.6.6 remote-as 1
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.6.6 update-source Loopback9
> > >>
> > >>neighbor 132.5.129.2 remote-as 4
> > >>
> > >>Just do like this and you will see the results
> > >>
> > >>Sam
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: McNutt, Steve
> > >> To: 'Eric Jastak' ; 'Sam Munzani'
> > >> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:43 PM
> > >> Subject: RE: BGP Route-maps
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I can confirm that the rule does apply to IBGP. I ran into this
>last
> > >>night on CCBootcamp lab 12. The rule makes sense given the goal of
>IBGP
> > >>is to maintain AS consistancy.
> > >>
> > >> Lab 12 is cool because it gave me an idea of how confusing things
>can
> > >>get when working with confederations. The scoping of some rules are
> > >>changed, but some are not, and the confederation makes it harder to
>tell
> > >>if
> > >>you are not meeting an AS wide "IBGP" type rule.
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Eric Jastak [mailto:ejastak@gobosh.cc]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 2:14 PM
> > >> To: 'Sam Munzani'
> > >> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > >> Subject: RE: BGP Route-maps
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think that rule only applies to iBGP. Was the route-map
>applied
>to
> > >>an iBGP or eBGP neighbor?
> > >>
> > >> - Eric
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Sam Munzani [mailto:sam@munzani.com]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:07 AM
> > >> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >> Subject: BGP Route-maps
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Group,
> > >>
> > >> As everybody might have read it in Halabi and bunch of other
> > >>sources.
> > >> "Inbound Route-map does not work when used with matching IP
> > >>address". Today I experimented and it works inbound also. Violating
>the
> > >>BGP
> > >>(or Halabi) rule for route-maps.
> > >>
> > >> Sam
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 08:25:43 GMT-3