![]() ![]() Maybe you saw the issue from the previous show ip bgp results. So what happens now when PE-M1 or PE-M2 attempts to reach 10.26.6.1? PE-M1#trace 10.26.6.1 Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcdĪs expected, the RR clients now have one BGP entry towards 10.26.6.1, for example: PE-M1#sh ip bgpīGP table version is 3, local router ID is 10.216.248.3 The PE-M1 and PE-M2 routers only have one iBGP session, for example: PE-M2#sh ip bgp sumīGP router identifier 10.216.248.4, local AS number 200īGP activity 1/0 prefixes, 1/0 paths, scan interval 60 secs Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/Pfx Neighbor 10.216.248.1 update-source lo 0 Verifying the RR ConfigurationĪs expected, the PE-T1 and PE-T2 routers now only have three iBGP sessions, for example: PE-T1#sh ip bgp sumīGP router identifier 10.216.248.1, local AS number 200īGP table version is 2, main routing table version 2ġ network entries using 121 bytes of memoryĢ/1 BGP path/bestpath attribute entries using 152 bytes of memoryġ BGP rrinfo entries using 24 bytes of memoryġ BGP AS-PATH entries using 24 bytes of memoryĠ BGP route-map cache entries using 0 bytes of memoryĠ BGP filter-list cache entries using 0 bytes of memoryīGP activity 1/0 prefixes, 2/0 paths, scan interval 60 secs Neighbor 10.216.248.3 route-reflector-client ![]() ![]() Neighbor 10.216.248.4 route-reflector-client The following new RR configurations are applied: !PE-T1 (This RR design is NOT a recommended design, but is used here for illustration.) The thick solid black lines again show the physical connectivity in the network. There is also an iBGP session between PE-T1 and PE-T2. The dashed-dotted lines from PE-T1 and PE-T2 show the logical iBGP sessions to the RR clients. To test an RR design that does not follow the physical topology, the following physical and logical topology will be implemented: Migrating to a BGP Route Reflector Configuration Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.26.6.1, timeout is 2 seconds: Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, Initially, all devices in AS 200 have two BGP entries to reach 10.26.6.1, for example: PE-M2#sh ip bgpīGP table version is 3, local router ID is 10.216.248.4 Neighbor 10.216.248.4 update-source Loopback0 Here is what one of the edge router’s BGP configuration looks like: CE-A1#sh run | beg router bgp Neighbor 10.216.248.3 update-source Loopback0 Neighbor 10.216.248.2 update-source Loopback0 Neighbor 10.216.248.1 update-source Loopback0 The following loopback addressing is in place:Īll the routers in AS 200 are peering on loopback 0, for example: ! The two edge routers CE-A1 and CE-A2 have eBGP sessions to edge routers A and B in AS 100. The basic BGP configuration is straight-forward, all routers in each AS has a full mesh of iBGP sessions to all other BGP speakers in their domain. The thick solid black lines show the physical connectivity in the network. The dashed lines show the logical BGP sessions. IP address 10.26.6.1 is currently reachable from PE-M1 & PE-M2. (I am ignoring how AS 100 is inter-connected.) Routers A and B from AS 100 both send prefix 10.26.6.0/24 to their neighbors. Initially, AS 200 has a full mesh design of iBGP speakers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |