From: David Timmons (masterdt@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jul 14 2006 - 17:32:50 ART
It sounds like you are saying control the outbound
flow of traffic and prefer one path over another. You
could use community strings on R2 & R3 and use them to
match in a route-map created on R1. I don't see why
could not use a weight,local preference or med on R1
w/o the community strings. If we used med, you would
want to use always compare on R1. When ever I do med
manipulation, I always include deterministic MED.
It really depends on the requirements. Based on your
email, we don't need communities for this. We have
many ways to control the outbound path selection.
Communities can be used to control inbound path
selection if both parties agree on the community and
how they should be used. For example, you could get
your ISP to configure local preference when you send
tag a particular community.
dt
--- pankaj kumar <pankaj_mcse123@rediffmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Pls Could you explain the following BGP Community
> tags scenario ?
>
> 3
> Routers r1, r2 & r3 are in Different BGP AS.
>
> R1 --- AS 1
> R2 --- AS 2
> R3 ---
> AS 3
>
> R1 establishes EBGP with R2 & R3
>
> NOW The below networks are advertised
> under BGP on R2 & R3
>
> R2 : 114.10.10.2/24, 114.20.20.2/24
>
> R3 :
> 115.10.10.3/24, 115.20.20.3/24
>
> NOW Ensure that R1 uses AS 2 to connect to
> 114.10.10.0/24 & 115.10.10.0/24 & AS 3 to
> 114.20.20.0/24 & 115.20.20.0/24. WE
> must use use community tags in AS 2 & 3 and neighbor
> command on R1 to
> accomplish this task.
>
> Waiting ur explanations
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Pankaj Kumar
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART