On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:38:42AM +0300, Dean Belev (Neterra NMT) wrote: > Hi all, > > I was performing a home lab and decided to test a new scenario including > iBGP between a router and RS. > That's a brief scheme of the lab: > > ### > 5.5.5.1 5.5.5.2 6.6.6.100/24 > 6.6.6.6/24 > 6.6.6.101/24 > Router3 (as3)---eBGP---> Router2 (as2)---iBGP/not a rs_client---> RS > (as2)---eBGP / rs_client--- > Router1 (as1) > 3.3.3.0/24 2.2.2.0/24 > > 1.1.1.0/24 > ### > > Since, as route 3.3.3.0/24 is seen in RS directly attached ( first asn is > as3) with next-hop 6.6.6.100 (I've set the next-hop manually into the RS's > config in bgp_in) I expect that Router1 should see it in the same way - > with hext-hop 6.6.6.100.
The question is whether you set manually real next-hop or bgp_next_hop attribute. For BGP route propagation, bgp_next_hop attribute is more important. You should check route attributes by 'show route 3.3.3.0/24 all' on RS and R1. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected]) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
