From: Roman Rodichev (rodic000@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun May 20 2001 - 19:49:39 GMT-3
Ken, you have to put "no sync" on R6 to make this work
iBGP routes didn't want to synchronize because the routing table didn't have
those routers from another IGP
>From: "Ken Yeo" <kenyeo@email.com>
>To: "rsevier" <rsevier@zealousolutions.com>, "Roman Rodichev"
><rodic000@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
>Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 17:53:48 -0500
>
>Hi Raymond,
>
>I though about this too. I redistribute OSPF into BGP only on R1 in the
>beginning. R8 didn't receive all AS2 routes.
>
>I do a show ip bgp in R6, the routes that didn't advertise across R6--> R8
>have not > (best routes) on them.
>
>I have to redistribute OSPF into BGP on R6 to make it work. Below is my
>SHOW
>IP BGP on R6 after redistribute OSPF into BGP on R1 and R6.
>
>r6#sh ip bgp
>BGP table version is 271, local router ID is 137.20.60.1
>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
>*> 137.20.10.0/24 137.20.64.5 20 32768 ?
>* i137.20.20.0/24 137.20.25.2 129 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 71 32768 ?
>* i137.20.25.0/24 137.20.25.1 0 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 70 32768 ?
>* i137.20.30.0/24 137.20.25.2 129 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 71 32768 ?
>* i137.20.33.0/24 137.20.25.2 129 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 71 32768 ?
>* i137.20.40.16/28 137.20.25.2 164 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 106 32768 ?
>*>i137.20.60.0/24 137.20.25.2 71 100 0 ?
>*>i137.20.64.0/20 137.20.25.2 70 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.81.0/24 137.20.86.1 0 0 1 i
>*> 137.20.82.0/24 137.20.86.1 0 0 1 i
>* i137.20.100.33/32 137.20.25.2 128 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 70 32768 ?
>* i137.20.100.34/32 137.20.25.2 64 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 6 32768 ?
>* i137.20.100.35/32 137.20.25.2 128 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 70 32768 ?
>* i137.20.200.16/28 137.20.25.2 164 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 106 32768 ?
>* i137.20.240.0/20 137.20.25.2 65 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 7 32768 ?
>* i160.0.0.0/4 137.20.10.70 170 100 0 3 i
>*> 137.20.64.5 1 32768 ?
>* i160.10.10.0/24 137.20.10.70 170 100 0 3 i
>* i161.10.10.0/24 137.20.10.70 170 100 0 3 i
>* i170.10.10.0/24 137.20.10.70 170 100 0 3 i
>* i172.168.70.0/24 137.20.10.70 170 100 0 3 i
>*> 172.168.80.0/24 137.20.86.1 0 0 1 i
>* i200.200.100.0 137.20.25.2 129 100 0 ?
>*> 137.20.64.5 71 32768 ?
>*> 200.200.200.0 137.20.64.5 71 32768 ?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rsevier [mailto:rsevier@zealousolutions.com]
>Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 11:30 AM
>To: Roman Rodichev; kenyeo@email.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
>
>
>I agree that bgp always-compare-med is not needed. however, I have another
>one for you. Does there need to be redistribution on r1 of ospf into bgp.
>I know that redistribution of bgp into ospf is needed. I have just
>completed 8a and didn't find a reason to for the redistribution on r1 of
>ospf into bgp. Our solution worked fine with out it because of the it is
>being redistributed on r6. Can I get any input as to why it is in the
>answers from Marc.
>
>thanks in advance
>Raymond
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
>Roman Rodichev
>Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:31 PM
>To: kenyeo@email.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
>
>
>I thought so too
>
>
> >From: "Ken Yeo" <kenyeo@email.com>
> >Reply-To: "Ken Yeo" <kenyeo@email.com>
> >To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: ccbootcamp 8 - bgp always-compare-med
> >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:06:44 -0500
> >
> >on r1
> >
> >I believe bgp always-compare-med is not needed.
> >
> >Anyone can comfirm that?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Ken Yeo
> >**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:47 GMT-3