On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 22:54 -0500, Justin Shore wrote: > So I did a little more playing around and found that if I added an vpnv4 > activate on the DC #2 router for core #2's IP I got my vpnv4 routes. I > only got those connected to core #2 though. I had to add another > activate for core #1. I'm assuming that core #2 sent those BGP routes > that it learned via iBGP from core #1 to DC #2 because of the RR config. > Since I'm eliminating the iBGP RR config I have to complete the full > mesh to get the full set of routes. That makes sense.
Core #2 doesn't have "route-reflector-client" configured towards the new router, so it only sends it's own prefixes and prefixes from any RR clients of it's own. That seems to make sense to me too. > One thing that doesn't make sense at this point is why the ibgp-peer > peer-group config in the vpnv4 address-family wasn't sufficient enough > to enable the learning of vpnv4 routes. Do peer-groups and vpnv4 config > not mix? Trying to add the command "neighbor aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd > send-community extendeded" to any of the routers involved (where > aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd is a configured member of a peer-group) results in the > error: > > % Invalid command for a peer-group member > > To me that implies that some sort of interaction exists between vpnv4 > config and peer-group config. Can anyone add any input to this? AFAIK you always have to activate the specific peers in the VPNv4 configuration for VPNv4 functionality. I.e. : router bgp 64512 neighbor PG peer-group neighbor PG remote-as 65412 neghibor 10.0.0.1 activate ! address-family vpnv4 neighbor 10.0.0.1 activate exit-address-family ! exit ! VPNv4 and IPv4 mixes fine, but the activation is seperated so you can run some IPv4 only peers, some VPNv4 only peers and some mixed peers. Regards, Peter _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
