...also curious: If there is a discrepancy between "sh ip cef <perfix>" and "sh ip cef <prefix> internal" for prefixes in question.
Regards, ./Randy --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Sebastian Wiesinger <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Sebastian Wiesinger <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Loop/Unreachable problem with C6500/SUP720 > To: "Cisco NSP" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 12:07 PM > * Xu Hu <[email protected]> > [2012-08-08 18:30]: > > Are this routes all running in the ospf and bgp at the > same time? If yes, it is a normal behaviour. > > Hello, > > as Gert pointed out, the networks are connected (I also have > another > network, which is a static route (redistributed into OSPF), > which is > showing the same behaviour. > > If Routes are in OSPF and BGP administrative distance would > decide > which protocol wins. That single IPs in a network show > different > forwarding caracteristics (leaving out load-balancing) is > not normal > behaviour. > > Regards > > Sebastian > > -- > GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 > 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) > 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE > ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. > -- Terry > Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant > _______________________________________________ > 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/
