From: Bruce Williams (bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 22:18:10 GMT-3
I read that case study and I noticed that they use the command,
"aggregate-address address-mask suppress-map map-name" to suppress routes
more specific routes, but they dont specify whether that will work on more
specific local route. It might work. I am going to test it out and see.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Ted McDermott
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 4:23 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: BGP - Suppressing Specific Routes
In Cisco - BGP Case Studies Section 4
(http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/459/16.html), the
author gives two solutions for suppressing the
specific local route 160.10.0.0 while advertising an
aggregate 160.0.0.0 route. Since an "aggregate
summary-only" command would not suppress the more
specific local route, the author gives two options,
both of which involve creating a static route to
null0. Neither of these would be acceptable if static
routes are not allowed. Is there any solution for this
which avoids static routes?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:47 GMT-3