From: Connary, Julie Ann (jconnary@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jan 06 2001 - 11:31:09 GMT-3
Thanks to Tom - I think
this explains my situation.
Julie Ann
>Reply-To: "Thomas Alexander" <talexander1@austin.rr.com>
>From: "Thomas Alexander" <talexander1@austin.rr.com>
>To: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>
>Subject: Re: route-reflector question
>Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:14:33 -0600
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>
>A route-reflector will reflect routes from:
>
>a) route-reflector-clients to other route-reflector clients
>b) route-reflector-clients to NON-clients
>c) NON-clients to route-reflector clients
>
>Since r5 is a client, all routes received, will
>be reflected to non-clients and vice-versa.
>It will not reflect routes from non-clients to other non-clients .
>
>Regds/ Tom
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Connary, Julie Ann <jconnary@cisco.com>
>To: David C Prall <dcp@dcptech.com>
>Cc: CCIE Lab groupstudy.com <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:00 PM
>Subject: Re: route-reflector question
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I fully realize that route-reflectors are a replacement for fully-meshed
> > IBGP. Hence my question why
> > R3 should get the route at all since it is not internally peered to
> > R5 and R1 is not setup to reflect to it - although it seems to be doing
> > just that.
> >
> > Sorry - long day - I'm going home now. If anyone has any ideas why R1
>would
> > reflect an internal
> > router to another internal peer that is not a route-reflector
>client ---------
> >
> > Julie Ann
> >
> > At 04:41 PM 1/5/2001 -0500, David C Prall wrote:
> > >I believe this is confusion between internal and external routes.
>Internal
> > >BGP routers must be fully meshed, they only advertise their local
>networks
> > >to other internal neighbors. External BGP routes will be advertised to
>other
> > >internal neighbors. The use of a route reflector allows internal routes
>to
> > >be advertised to other internal routers, thus relieving the need for a
>fully
> > >meshed topology.
> > >
> > >David C Prall dcp@dcptech.com http://dcp.dcptech.com
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Connary, Julie Ann" <jconnary@cisco.com>
> > >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 4:23 PM
> > >Subject: route-reflector question
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > I have a frame-relay hub and spoke network with the hub as the
> > > > route-reflector server and the spokes as clients.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > R3---------------EBGP ---------R4
> > > > | 137.20.34.3 137.20.34.4
> > > > | 137.20.1.3
> > > > |
> > > > IBGP
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > | 137.20.1.1 137.20.1.5 137.20..129.5 137.20.129.7
> > > > R1-----------------ibgp ---------R5----------EBGP ------------R7
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > R1 is the frame-relay hub with R3 and R5 as spokes.
> > > > R7 is initiating a route - 160.0.0.0/4. R4 is also intiating a route -
> > > > 172.168.2.0
> > > > I had setup R1 to route-reflect to R5, but not to R3. So I had
>expected
> > > > that R5 would see the
> > > > route from R4, but R3 should not see the route from R7 - as R1 should
>not
> > > > reflect it - correct?
> > > >
> > > > On R3 I see the following:
> > > >
> > > > r3#show ip bgp
> > > > BGP table version is 33, local router ID is 137.20.31.65
> > > > 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
> > > > *>i160.0.0.0/4 137.20.129.7 100 0 3 i
> > > > *> 172.168.2.0/24 137.20.34.4 0 0 1 ?
> > > >
> > > > r3#show ip bgp 160.0.0.0
> > > > BGP routing table entry for 160.0.0.0/4, version 33
> > > > Paths: (1 available, best #1)
> > > > 3, (aggregated by 3 170.10.10.1)
> > > > 137.20.129.7 (metric 84) from 137.20.1.1 (137.20.129.5)
> > > > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate,
>best
> > > > Originator : 137.20.129.5, Cluster list: 137.20.11.33
> > > >
> > > > With a BGP setup of:
> > > >
> > > > !
> > > > router bgp 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.1.1 remote-as 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.34.4 remote-as 1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On R1 I see:
> > > >
> > > > r1#show ip bgp
> > > > BGP table version is 25, local router ID is 137.20.11.33
> > > > 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
> > > > *>i160.0.0.0/4 137.20.129.7 100 0 3 i
> > > > *>i172.168.2.0/24 137.20.34.4 0 100 0 1 ?
> > > >
> > > > r1#show ip bgp 160.0.0.0
> > > > BGP routing table entry for 160.0.0.0/4, version 25
> > > > Paths: (1 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP)
> > > > 3, (aggregated by 3 170.10.10.1), (Received from a RR-client)
> > > > 137.20.129.7 (metric 84) from 137.20.1.5 (137.20.129.5)
> > > > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate,
>best
> > > >
> > > > with a bgp setup of:
> > > >
> > > > router bgp 2
> > > > no synchronization
> > > > neighbor 137.20.1.3 remote-as 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.1.5 remote-as 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.1.5 route-reflector-client
> > > > neighbor 137.20.12.2 remote-as 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.12.2 route-reflector-client
> > > >
> > > > (note that 137.20.1.3 is not a route-reflector-client.)
> > > >
> > > > On R5 I have:
> > > >
> > > > r5#show ip bgp
> > > > BGP table version is 3, local router ID is 137.20.129.5
> > > > 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
> > > > *> 160.0.0.0/4 137.20.129.7 0 3 i
> > > > *>i172.168.2.0/24 137.20.34.4 0 100 0 1 ?
> > > > r5#show ip bgp 160.0.0.0
> > > > BGP routing table entry for 160.0.0.0/4, version 3
> > > > Paths: (1 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP)
> > > > 3, (aggregated by 3 170.10.10.1)
> > > > 137.20.129.7 from 137.20.129.7 (170.10.10.1)
> > > > Origin IGP, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best
> > > >
> > > > with a setup of:
> > > >
> > > > router bgp 2
> > > > no synchronization
> > > > neighbor 137.20.1.1 remote-as 2
> > > > neighbor 137.20.129.7 remote-as 3
> > > > !
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > any ideas why R3 sees this route? Is this correct?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Julie Ann
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Julie Ann Connary
> > > > | | Network Consulting Engineer
> > > > ||| ||| Federal Support Program
> > > > .|||||. .|||||. 13635 Dulles Technology
>Drive,
> > > > Herndon VA 20171
> > > > .:|||||||||:.:|||||||||:. Pager: 1-888-642-0551
> > > > c i s c o S y s t e m s Email: jconnary@cisco.com
> > > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:23 GMT-3