I just saw this bug ID and it intrigued me, partially because I can't figure out what the heck they're trying to say!
CSCdw04656 When synchronization is enabled in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), routes appear as "valid, internal, and not unsynchronized." The traffic flow should follow the shortest AS-path instead of learning the route from an internal Border Gateway Protocol (iBGP) peer that is unsynchronized. This condition occurs when redistribution into Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is configured with and without route maps. Workaround: Configure "no sync" on the BGP process. Despite some incomprehensible wording--at least to me--it appears that this might indicate that the expected BGP/OSPF interaction is a bug! We know it isn't, really, because it was specified in an RFC, so if that behavior relates to this bug I'm really confused. As far as I can tell, this bug ID describes BGP/OSPF interaction where a router learns of a route via OSPF and via iBGP. If the router IDs of the advertising routers don't match, the route will remain unsynchronized. I wonder if someone saw this and thought it was a bug because they weren't aware of this interaction. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=33496&t=33496 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
