On Apr 19, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Borchers, Mark M. wrote: > We have a downstream BGP site announcing 19 prefixes from a Cisco > router. > Eleven of the prefixes were configured with network statements in > his BGP > config. The remaining nine were statically null-routed and being > redistributed into BGP. Thus, those nine appeared to us on an M20 > as origin > incomplete. None were advertised to other peers. > > Just wondering if this is working as designed or if we have a > Juniper-Cisco > BGP interoperability issue.
Nope, this is working as designed -- the name "incomplete" is a little unintuitive... > We are running Junos 7.6R2.6. I am aware of > the role of origin in BGP path selection, but these examples > include routes > that are not being announced via any other path. I am a little confused - are you saying that the ones that were configured with the network statement are working correctly and that the ones that arrive from the redistribution are not? Or that none or working? I would suggest checking that you are really getting all the routes: show route receive-protocol bgp <neighbor> detail show route protocol bgp <one of each of the route types> all detail and look at the State: and Inactive reasons: W > > > Mark Borchers > > > > > NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential > information and is intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, > copying > or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify the sender via e- > mail. > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > -- "Does Emacs have the Buddha nature? Why not? It has bloody well everything else?" _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
