On Wednesday, October 26, 2011 04:06:31 PM Nikolay Shopik wrote: > I've got two borders connected via ibgp, both receving > full-view via uplinks, and I notice one of borders > receiving about 190K prefixes via ibgp. But I'm clearly > sure there no filters at all. Configuration between > borders are pretty simple and consist just two lines. > > neighbor x.x.x.x remote-as 65536 > neighbor x.x.x.x next-hop-self
Just curious - are your border routers terminating customers directly? If not, and your customers are connected to edge routers lower in the topology stack, would you be happy with not allowing the border routers to exchange the routes they learn from their respective upstreams? Rather, you simply send the upstream routes down to the edge routers to which your customers connect (via a route reflector, if you have one), and then let those edge routers choose which border router is the best path to which Internet destination? This is what we do, and there's a certain joy to be had when upstream routes are not expressly learned among border routers. Of course, if your border routers are also doubling as edge routers that your customers connect to, you have no choice but to do what you're doing now. > Only difference is one border have configuration via > address-family ipv4 while other doesn't have such > sub-command, everything under router bgp. Any ideas > where should I look? Doesn't matter - contextual representation is local to the router. The BGP protocol still behaves the same way regardless of what CLI you choose to deploy. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
