On 04/04/06, Falk Brockerhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Am 29.03.2006 um 14:32 schrieb Falk Brockerhoff:
>
> >> that, again, is sth nobody ever asked for or missed :)
> >> however, the (completely untested except for compilation) diff below
> >> should add "set nexthop self".
> >
> > Ui, you're realy fast :-) Thank you for your quick response. I'll
> > compile this and test it with a spare old Cisco-Router as
> > "Development-Core" next weekend. I'll give you a feedback about it.
>
> The next-hop patch is working perfectly, thanks!
>
> But I've got another problem: actually I'm announcing the following
> prefixes from a "testing core"-router to the border-router running
> openBGPd:
>
> Dest/mask Next-Hop Med LocalPref
> 192.168.0.0/24 10.0.0.6 --- 100
> 192.168.0.0/29 10.0.0.6 --- 100
> 10.0.0.4/30 10.0.0.6 --- 100
> 192.168.1.153/32 10.0.0.6 --- 100
>
> - 192.168.0.0/24 is an aggregated prefix, caused by 192.168.0.1/29.
> - 10.0.0.4/30 is from the transfer-network between my core (10.0.0.6)
> and the openbgpd-router (10.0.0.5).
> - 192.168.1.153/32 is the loopback-address of the core.
>
> In the openbgpd.conf I configured "network 192.168.0.0/24". This
> prefix is correctly announced by openbgpd to my external neighbor.
> But on my open BGPd-router I can't ping the address 192.168.0.1,
> which is configured on a interface at the core-router:
>
> $ ping 192.168.0.1
> PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: wrote 192.168.0.1 64 chars, ret=-1
>
>
> $ bgpctl sh rib 192.168.0.1
> flags: * = Valid, > = Selected, I = via IBGP, A = Announced
> origin: i = IGP, e = EGP, ? = Incomplete
>
> flags destination gateway lpref med aspath origin
> AI*> 192.168.0.0/24 0.0.0.0 100 0 i
> I* 192.168.0.0/24 10.0.0.6 100 0 i
>
> Any idea, what's going on here?
>
> my bgpd.conf:
>
> AS 64400
> router-id 192.168.1.150
> network 192.168.0.0/24
Why do you have network 192.168.0.0/24 in bgpd.conf if you already get
that prefix from the core router ?
Above you could see 192.168.0.0/24 from the core router and the local box,
the local /24 was chosen as best path.
Some pure guess work here:
Do you have a /24 network statement in your bgpd.conf but no real route for
it ?
Maybe this in bgpd means that you will announce that /24, basically beating
the
/24 you are receiving from the core, and thus not installing that /24 into
the
routing table.
/Tony
--
Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
"I couldn't help it, it's my nature" =-
