Where the prefixes marked with rib failure? Or simply none of them when marked as best? Are you using route-maps or just simple import definitions?
It's scary that BGP could malfunction like this Well if you saw the routes in BGP than they must have passed through the import filters, wondering why BGP would not mark them as best, maybe some failure during decision process When you removed the import from VRF the BGP must have dropped the prefixes according to the default RT filters and relearned them once you added the import back adam -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [c-nsp] vpnv4 nlri in bgp but not marked as > best in order to get into rib Have y'all ever seen this ? I was learning vpnv4 prefixes from pe far away in my local bgp table, but strangely none were marked > best. Sh route vrf one 1.2.3.0 showed routed to null0 for a /18 that I have as a static in order to advertise larger cidr to my isp. So as packets came from internet they were sent to bit bucket for 1.2.3.0/24 and customer was having no connectivity. I simply removed import from vrf one and readded it and BAM, bgp marked as best and installed into rib and customer could surf. Aaron _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
