Jim, The default route as you've seen won't work but this will: Rack4R2#conf t Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. Rack4R2(config)#ip route 0.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 192.168.33.2 Rack4R2(config)#ip route 128.0.0.0 128.0.0.0 192.168.33.2 Rack4R2(config)#^Z Rack4R2#show ip route static S 0.0.0.0/1 [1/0] via 192.168.33.2 S 128.0.0.0/1 [1/0] via 192.168.33.2 Rack4R2#
It's the next best thing to a default route ;-) Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP Dial/Security) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.labforge.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Devane Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: eBGP Multi-hop [7:65823] Thanks for the replies so far... Hmm, Well, actually becuase BGP uses TCP 179 is can traverse non-BGP speakers to a router that does speak BGP ( Just like TFTP'ing to another router) I put the config I was testing below. The config works, BGP runs everyone is happy when I have a specific route to the opposite side peer's Loopback address. ip route 172.16.10.1 255.255.255.255 192.168.33.2 but if I remove that and install ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.33.2 then BGP breaks. I don't understand why. There is no IGP. Both routes point to exactly the same place. conf t router bgp 65500 no synchronization bgp log-neighbor-changes network 192.168.47.0 network 192.168.55.0 aggregate-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 neighbor 172.16.10.1 remote-as 65555 neighbor 172.16.10.1 ebgp-multihop5 neighbor 172.16.10.1 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 172.16.10.1 version 4 neighbor 172.16.10.1 soft-reconfiguration inbound neighbor 172.16.10.1 password 7 140705191C117B3821 neighbor 172.16.10.1 filter-list 3 in neighbor 172.16.10.1 filter-list 4 out ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carroll Kong" To: Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 6:54 AM Subject: Re: eBGP Multi-hop [7:65823] > I guess I am kind of just going to a quick stab. Do you have "no > synchronization" under the BGP configuration? > > > hello all, > > > > (Re-post...not sure if original msg made it our not) > > > > playing around again and have a question. eBGP multi-hop cannot come up if > > the peer is known through a default route. > > Is there a reason why? > > I mean, what is the point of a static route that causes a recursive lookup > > or a static route that simply points to the same next hop as a default > route? > > For that matter, I can't see it being a matter of proximity either. If > > convergence time were not an issue, what is really wrong with having a 10 > > hop or even 50 hop BGP session? (I know it is unlikely and there are > > cetainly better ways to handle it (GRE or IPSec tunnel)) but for the sake > of > > argument... > > > > Just curious, not able to find much on WHY it is like this... > > > > thanks, > > Jim > -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=65875&t=65823 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
