Try the same scenario with an extended ping to insure to and from
reachability from the specific interface, not just the router.
Louie
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Richard Chang
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBGP multihop?
1. I did have "update-source" command...
2. loopback interfaces are pinging on both routers...
I also wish that it is true that there is no limitation for ibgp multihop...
However, based on my following test, the only conclusion I came up with is
that either I missed something that's really obvious or Cisco does not
support ibgp multihop.
R2:
interface Loopback0
ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.0
no ip directed-broadcast
router bgp 65001
no synchronization
bgp confederation identifier 100
neighbor 3.3.3.3 remote-as 65001
neighbor 3.3.3.3 update-source Loopback0
R2#ping 3.3.3.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
R2#show ip bgp summ
BGP router identifier 2.2.2.2, local AS number 65001
BGP table version is 1, main routing table version 1
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down
State/PfxRcd
3.3.3.3 4 65001 0 0 0 0 0 never Active
R3:
interface Loopback0
ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.0
no ip directed-broadcast
router bgp 65001
no synchronization
bgp confederation identifier 100
neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 65001
neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0
R3#ping 2.2.2.2
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2.2.2.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
"Raul Camacho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
98pha2$fop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98pha2$fop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is no requirement for IBGP neigbors to be directly connected. Make
> sure that you have the routes for all of the intermediate links and the
> loopbacks in your routing table first.
>
> ""Richard Chang"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 98p8ls$chl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:98p8ls$chl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > For EBGP, you can use the ebgp-multihop command when the neighbors are
not
> > directly-connected. I was just wondering whether there is a similar
> > work-around that anyone know of for IBGP.
> >
> > Basically, I am using loopback interfaces on these two routers and they
> have
> > to go through another hop before hitting each other. I configured IBGP
on
> > these two routers with those loopback addresses and found out that the
BGP
> > session can't be formed...
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
