Hi Hoogen ! I see that there is a requirement as prepend them with as number 64512 twice not 65412 twice
Because if prepend 65412 as we also have to enable as loop 3 ________________________________________ From: juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net [juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net [juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 2:42 PM To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 83, Issue 54 Send juniper-nsp mailing list submissions to juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net You can reach the person managing the list at juniper-nsp-ow...@puck.nether.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of juniper-nsp digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: death by branding (Adam Rothschild) 2. Re: JNCIP EBGP Case Study... (Hoogen) 3. Re: JNCIP EBGP Case Study... (Hoogen) 4. Re: death by branding (Ben Dale) 5. Re: JNCIP EBGP Case Study... (Felix Schueren) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:21:00 -0400 From: Adam Rothschild <a...@latency.net> To: Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] death by branding Message-ID: <20091029202100.ga49...@latency.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On 2009-10-29-14:58:32, Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> wrote: > http://www.e-gerbil.net/juniper_style_guide.pdf This appears to return a forbidden. -a ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:56:29 -0700 From: Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> To: Sean Clarke <s...@clarke-3.demon.nl> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP EBGP Case Study... Message-ID: <dffd2e730910291456m5bc70efap149362e8fd46c...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag them with a community and prepend them with as number 65412 twice... I notice that when I deactivate that.. It works.. So obviously R3 is considering the routes received from R1 with prepend of 65412 for all P1 routes to be some sort of as loop... So I guess there is something wrong about it.. Page 568 of the JNCIP books... -Hoogen On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> wrote: > R1 > > l...@r1> show configuration routing-options > static { > route 10.0.200.0/24 { > next-hop 10.0.1.102; > no-readvertise; > } > route 192.168.10.0/24 reject; > route 192.168.100.0/24 reject; > route 10.0.0.0/8 { > next-hop 10.0.4.13; > qualified-next-hop 10.0.4.6 { > preference 10; > } > } > } > martians { > 192.0.2.0/24 orlonger; > } > autonomous-system 65000; > confederation 65412 members [ 65000 65001 65002 ]; > > l...@r1> > > l...@r1> show configuration protocols bgp > group 65000 { > type internal; > local-address 10.0.6.1; > export ibgp; > neighbor 10.0.3.3; > } > group p1 { > type external; > import peer-filter-in; > export p1-export; > neighbor 10.0.5.254 { > peer-as 1492; > } > } > > l...@r1> > > l...@r1> show configuration policy-options policy-statement ibgp > term 1 { > from { > protocol static; > route-filter 192.168.10.0/24 exact; > } > then accept; > } > term 2 { > from { > protocol static; > route-filter 192.168.100.0/24 exact; > } > then { > metric 101; > local-preference 101; > community add no-export; > accept; > } > } > > l...@r1> > > R3 Configuration > > l...@r3> show configuration routing-options > static { > route 10.0.200.0/24 { > next-hop 10.0.1.102; > no-readvertise; > } > route 192.168.30.0/24 reject; > } > martians { > 192.0.2.0/24 orlonger; > } > aggregate { > route 10.0.4.0/22; > } > autonomous-system 65000; > confederation 65412 members [ 65000 65001 65002 ]; > > l...@r3> > > l...@r3> show configuration protocols bgp > advertise-inactive; > group 65000 { > type internal; > local-address 10.0.3.3; > export ibgp; > neighbor 10.0.6.1; > } > group c-bgp { > type external; > multihop; > local-address 10.0.3.3; > export ibgp; > neighbor 10.0.3.4 { > hold-time 180; > peer-as 65001; > } > neighbor 10.0.3.5 { > peer-as 65002; > } > } > group t1-t2 { > type external; > damping; > import [ damp trans-filter-in ]; > export [ no-192-24s prepend ]; > remove-private; > multipath; > neighbor 172.16.0.14 { > peer-as 65222; > } > neighbor 172.16.0.18 { > peer-as 65222; > } > } > > l...@r3> > > > l...@r3> show configuration policy-options policy-statement ibgp > term 1 { > from { > protocol static; > route-filter 192.168.30.0/24 exact; > } > then accept; > } > term 2 { > from community trans-1-2; > then { > next-hop self; > } > } > > l...@r3> > > Thanks for your help guys.. > > -Hoogen > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Sean Clarke <s...@clarke-3.demon.nl>wrote: > >> >> What is in your ibgp export policy from R1 to R3 ? Are you putting >> something in there to cause an issue ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/29/09 10:43 AM, Hoogen wrote: >> >> Hi Felix, >> >> Thank you for the reply.. >> >> I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not >> there now.. I still see the issue.. >> >> I had already checked the hidden routes..and those are not the ones >> which are hiding >> >> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 hidden extensive >> >> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >> >> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >> holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> [edit] >> l...@r3# >> >> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 >> >> >> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >> Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS path >> * 192.168.10.0/24 10.0.6.1 100 I >> * 192.168.100.0/24 10.0.6.1 101 101 I >> >> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >> holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> [edit] >> l...@r3# >> >> l...@r3# run show route protocol bgp hidden extensive >> >> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >> 172.17.0.0/16 (1 entry, 0 announced) >> BGP /-101 >> Next-hop reference count: 2 >> Source: 172.16.0.14 >> Next hop: 172.16.0.14 via ge-0/0/0.0, selected >> State: <Hidden Ext> >> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >> Age: 1:27:54 >> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.14+3227 >> AS path: 65222 I >> Localpref: 100 >> Router ID: 130.130.0.1 >> >> 192.0.2.0/24 (1 entry, 0 announced) >> BGP /-101 >> Next-hop reference count: 5 >> Source: 172.16.0.18 >> Next hop: 172.16.0.18 via ge-0/0/3.0, selected >> State: <Hidden Martian Ext> >> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >> Age: 1:28:19 >> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.18+179 >> AS path: 65222 I >> Communities: 65412:102 >> Localpref: 100 >> Router ID: 130.130.0.2 >> >> 220.0.0.0/28 (1 entry, 0 announced) >> BGP /-101 >> Next-hop reference count: 5 >> Source: 172.16.0.18 >> Next hop: 172.16.0.18 via ge-0/0/3.0, selected >> State: <Hidden Ext> >> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >> Age: 1:28:19 >> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.18+179 >> AS path: 65222 I >> Localpref: 100 >> Router ID: 130.130.0.2 >> >> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >> holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >> >> [edit] >> l...@r3# >> >> >> The one I am concerned is with group 65000 and I don't have any import >> policy to deny anything there.. >> >> [edit] >> l...@r3# show protocols bgp >> advertise-inactive; >> group 65000 { >> type internal; >> local-address 10.0.3.3; >> export ibgp; >> neighbor 10.0.6.1; >> } >> group c-bgp { >> type external; >> multihop; >> local-address 10.0.3.3; >> export ibgp; >> neighbor 10.0.3.4 { >> hold-time 180; >> peer-as 65001; >> } >> neighbor 10.0.3.5 { >> peer-as 65002; >> } >> } >> group t1-t2 { >> type external; >> damping; >> import [ damp trans-filter-in ]; >> export [ no-192-24s prepend ]; >> remove-private; >> multipath; >> neighbor 172.16.0.14 { >> peer-as 65222; >> } >> neighbor 172.16.0.18 { >> peer-as 65222; >> } >> } >> >> [edit] >> l...@r3# >> >> This is really strange.. I compared the solutions, and there seems >> nothing wrong.. >> >> -Hoogen >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Felix Schueren < >> felix.schue...@hosteurope.de> wrote: >> >>> Hoogen, >>> >>> Hoogen wrote: >>> >>> Now R3 only receives >>> >>> >>> >>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 >>> >>> >>> >>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 106 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 17 >>> hidden) >>> >>> Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS >>> path >>> >>> * 192.168.10.0/24 10.0.6.1 100 I >>> >>> * 192.168.100.0/24 10.0.6.1 101 101 I >>> >>> >>> please do >>> show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 hidden extensive >>> >>> also paste >>> show configuration protocols bgp >>> >>> both from R3 >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Felix >>> >>> -- >>> Felix Sch?ren >>> Head of Network >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de >>> Welserstra?e 14 - 51149 K?ln - Germany >>> Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) >>> HRB 28495 Amtsgericht K?ln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 >>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: >>> Uwe Braun - Alex Collins - Mark Joseph - Patrick Pulverm?ller >>> >>> (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz, Mobilfunkpreise ggf. abweichend >>> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:29:19 -0700 From: Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> To: Sean Clarke <s...@clarke-3.demon.nl> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP EBGP Case Study... Message-ID: <dffd2e730910291529q39e546ftd96ba2b40127a...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I guess for the solution to work we need to have autonomous-system 65001 loops 3; This would make sure we get those routes. -Hoogen On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag them > with a community and prepend them with as number 65412 twice... I notice > that when I deactivate that.. It works.. So obviously R3 is considering the > routes received from R1 with prepend of 65412 for all P1 routes to be some > sort of as loop... So I guess there is something wrong about it.. > > Page 568 of the JNCIP books... > > -Hoogen > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> R1 >> >> l...@r1> show configuration routing-options >> static { >> route 10.0.200.0/24 { >> next-hop 10.0.1.102; >> no-readvertise; >> } >> route 192.168.10.0/24 reject; >> route 192.168.100.0/24 reject; >> route 10.0.0.0/8 { >> next-hop 10.0.4.13; >> qualified-next-hop 10.0.4.6 { >> preference 10; >> } >> } >> } >> martians { >> 192.0.2.0/24 orlonger; >> } >> autonomous-system 65000; >> confederation 65412 members [ 65000 65001 65002 ]; >> >> l...@r1> >> >> l...@r1> show configuration protocols bgp >> group 65000 { >> type internal; >> local-address 10.0.6.1; >> export ibgp; >> neighbor 10.0.3.3; >> } >> group p1 { >> type external; >> import peer-filter-in; >> export p1-export; >> neighbor 10.0.5.254 { >> peer-as 1492; >> } >> } >> >> l...@r1> >> >> l...@r1> show configuration policy-options policy-statement ibgp >> term 1 { >> from { >> protocol static; >> route-filter 192.168.10.0/24 exact; >> } >> then accept; >> } >> term 2 { >> from { >> protocol static; >> route-filter 192.168.100.0/24 exact; >> } >> then { >> metric 101; >> local-preference 101; >> community add no-export; >> accept; >> } >> } >> >> l...@r1> >> >> R3 Configuration >> >> l...@r3> show configuration routing-options >> static { >> route 10.0.200.0/24 { >> next-hop 10.0.1.102; >> no-readvertise; >> } >> route 192.168.30.0/24 reject; >> } >> martians { >> 192.0.2.0/24 orlonger; >> } >> aggregate { >> route 10.0.4.0/22; >> } >> autonomous-system 65000; >> confederation 65412 members [ 65000 65001 65002 ]; >> >> l...@r3> >> >> l...@r3> show configuration protocols bgp >> advertise-inactive; >> group 65000 { >> type internal; >> local-address 10.0.3.3; >> export ibgp; >> neighbor 10.0.6.1; >> } >> group c-bgp { >> type external; >> multihop; >> local-address 10.0.3.3; >> export ibgp; >> neighbor 10.0.3.4 { >> hold-time 180; >> peer-as 65001; >> } >> neighbor 10.0.3.5 { >> peer-as 65002; >> } >> } >> group t1-t2 { >> type external; >> damping; >> import [ damp trans-filter-in ]; >> export [ no-192-24s prepend ]; >> remove-private; >> multipath; >> neighbor 172.16.0.14 { >> peer-as 65222; >> } >> neighbor 172.16.0.18 { >> peer-as 65222; >> } >> } >> >> l...@r3> >> >> >> l...@r3> show configuration policy-options policy-statement ibgp >> term 1 { >> from { >> protocol static; >> route-filter 192.168.30.0/24 exact; >> } >> then accept; >> } >> term 2 { >> from community trans-1-2; >> then { >> next-hop self; >> } >> } >> >> l...@r3> >> >> Thanks for your help guys.. >> >> -Hoogen >> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Sean Clarke <s...@clarke-3.demon.nl>wrote: >> >>> >>> What is in your ibgp export policy from R1 to R3 ? Are you putting >>> something in there to cause an issue ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/29/09 10:43 AM, Hoogen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Felix, >>> >>> Thank you for the reply.. >>> >>> I am not sure how that 17 hidden routes came into play... But its not >>> there now.. I still see the issue.. >>> >>> I had already checked the hidden routes..and those are not the ones >>> which are hiding >>> >>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 hidden extensive >>> >>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >>> >>> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >>> holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> [edit] >>> l...@r3# >>> >>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 >>> >>> >>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >>> Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS path >>> * 192.168.10.0/24 10.0.6.1 100 I >>> * 192.168.100.0/24 10.0.6.1 101 101 I >>> >>> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >>> holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> [edit] >>> l...@r3# >>> >>> l...@r3# run show route protocol bgp hidden extensive >>> >>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 85 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 3 hidden) >>> 172.17.0.0/16 (1 entry, 0 announced) >>> BGP /-101 >>> Next-hop reference count: 2 >>> Source: 172.16.0.14 >>> Next hop: 172.16.0.14 via ge-0/0/0.0, selected >>> State: <Hidden Ext> >>> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >>> Age: 1:27:54 >>> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.14+3227 >>> AS path: 65222 I >>> Localpref: 100 >>> Router ID: 130.130.0.1 >>> >>> 192.0.2.0/24 (1 entry, 0 announced) >>> BGP /-101 >>> Next-hop reference count: 5 >>> Source: 172.16.0.18 >>> Next hop: 172.16.0.18 via ge-0/0/3.0, selected >>> State: <Hidden Martian Ext> >>> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >>> Age: 1:28:19 >>> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.18+179 >>> AS path: 65222 I >>> Communities: 65412:102 >>> Localpref: 100 >>> Router ID: 130.130.0.2 >>> >>> 220.0.0.0/28 (1 entry, 0 announced) >>> BGP /-101 >>> Next-hop reference count: 5 >>> Source: 172.16.0.18 >>> Next hop: 172.16.0.18 via ge-0/0/3.0, selected >>> State: <Hidden Ext> >>> Local AS: 65000 Peer AS: 65222 >>> Age: 1:28:19 >>> Task: BGP_65222.172.16.0.18+179 >>> AS path: 65222 I >>> Localpref: 100 >>> Router ID: 130.130.0.2 >>> >>> __juniper_private1__.inet.0: 2 destinations, 2 routes (2 active, 0 >>> holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) >>> >>> [edit] >>> l...@r3# >>> >>> >>> The one I am concerned is with group 65000 and I don't have any import >>> policy to deny anything there.. >>> >>> [edit] >>> l...@r3# show protocols bgp >>> advertise-inactive; >>> group 65000 { >>> type internal; >>> local-address 10.0.3.3; >>> export ibgp; >>> neighbor 10.0.6.1; >>> } >>> group c-bgp { >>> type external; >>> multihop; >>> local-address 10.0.3.3; >>> export ibgp; >>> neighbor 10.0.3.4 { >>> hold-time 180; >>> peer-as 65001; >>> } >>> neighbor 10.0.3.5 { >>> peer-as 65002; >>> } >>> } >>> group t1-t2 { >>> type external; >>> damping; >>> import [ damp trans-filter-in ]; >>> export [ no-192-24s prepend ]; >>> remove-private; >>> multipath; >>> neighbor 172.16.0.14 { >>> peer-as 65222; >>> } >>> neighbor 172.16.0.18 { >>> peer-as 65222; >>> } >>> } >>> >>> [edit] >>> l...@r3# >>> >>> This is really strange.. I compared the solutions, and there seems >>> nothing wrong.. >>> >>> -Hoogen >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Felix Schueren < >>> felix.schue...@hosteurope.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Hoogen, >>>> >>>> Hoogen wrote: >>>> >>> Now R3 only receives >>>> >>> >>>> >>> l...@r3# run show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> inet.0: 66 destinations, 106 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 17 >>>> hidden) >>>> >>> Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS >>>> path >>>> >>> * 192.168.10.0/24 10.0.6.1 100 I >>>> >>> * 192.168.100.0/24 10.0.6.1 101 101 I >>>> >>> >>>> please do >>>> show route receive-protocol bgp 10.0.6.1 hidden extensive >>>> >>>> also paste >>>> show configuration protocols bgp >>>> >>>> both from R3 >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Felix >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Felix Sch?ren >>>> Head of Network >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de >>>> Welserstra?e 14 - 51149 K?ln - Germany >>>> Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) >>>> HRB 28495 Amtsgericht K?ln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 >>>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: >>>> Uwe Braun - Alex Collins - Mark Joseph - Patrick Pulverm?ller >>>> >>>> (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz, Mobilfunkpreise ggf. abweichend >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:08:18 +1000 From: Ben Dale <bd...@comlinx.com.au> To: juniper-nsp nsp <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] death by branding Message-ID: <d0f4982d-189a-419e-b2f4-96b00fd72...@comlinx.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes That's nothing http://www.juniper.com.au/ Note this company was formed in 1992 and has had it's current logo for some time On 30/10/2009, at 6:38 AM, <keegan.hol...@sungard.com> <keegan.hol...@sungard.com > wrote: Makes you wonder if the firm charged Juniper more than Carls Jr. or vice versa... From: David Ball <davidtb...@gmail.com> To: Jonas Frey <j...@probe-networks.de> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net, Richard A Steenbergen <r...@e-gerbil.net> Date: 10/29/2009 04:06 PM Subject: Re: [j-nsp] death by branding Sent by: <juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> Well, at least it helps shed light on the premium you pay for the gear. Those graphic designers and marketing folks aren't free, ya know! David 2009/10/29 Jonas Frey <j...@probe-networks.de>: > ohh my god.... > > On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 19:58, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> http://www.e-gerbil.net/juniper_style_guide.pdf >> http://www.e-gerbil.net/cjr.png >> >> With apologies to Carl's Jr. :) > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:41:35 +0100 From: Felix Schueren <felix.schue...@hosteurope.de> To: Hoogen <hooge...@gmail.com> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [j-nsp] JNCIP EBGP Case Study... Message-ID: <4aea98af.7000...@hosteurope.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hoogen, >> Okay.. Earlier task required while accepting routes from peer to tag >> them with a community and prepend them with as number 65412 twice... >> I notice that when I deactivate that.. It works.. So obviously R3 is >> considering the routes received from R1 with prepend of 65412 for >> all P1 routes to be some sort of as loop... So I guess there is >> something wrong about it.. >> >> Page 568 of the JNCIP books... >> > I guess for the solution to work we need to have > > autonomous-system 65001 loops 3; > > This would make sure we get those routes. > it would, but I don't remember having to set as-loops when I worked through the JNCIP book. And I double-checked your initial email to find you might have a typo: l...@r1# run show route advertising-protocol bgp 10.0.3.3 >> >> inet.0: 65 destinations, 69 routes (63 active, 0 holddown, 4 hidden) >> Prefix Nexthop MED Lclpref AS path >> * 3.4.0.0/20 10.0.5.254 100 65412 >> 65412 1492 I You prepend 65412 65412, where it should be 64512 64512 There's also a typo in at least r1 & r3 configs: confederation 65412 members [ 65000 65001 65002 ]; your problems may be coming from those typos - if you consistently mistyped 64512 through your whole setup, it's probably ok, but I'd double-check all routers. Note that stuff like this will mess you up badly in the actual lab - double-check every number you type, it saves time in the long run :) Kind regards, Felix -- Felix Sch?ren Head of Network ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Host Europe GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de Welserstra?e 14 - 51149 K?ln - Germany Telefon: 0800 467 8387 - Fax: +49 180 5 66 3233 (*) HRB 28495 Amtsgericht K?ln - USt-IdNr.: DE187370678 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Uwe Braun - Alex Collins - Mark Joseph - Patrick Pulverm?ller (*) 0,14 EUR/Min. aus dem dt. Festnetz, Mobilfunkpreise ggf. abweichend ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp End of juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 83, Issue 54 ******************************************* _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp