I was able to solve the issue by statically routing the connected /29 out the connected interface, that way it overrode the BGP learned route for the same subnet (unfortunately this might have been a multi-homing issue that resulted in asymmetrical routing to the primary peer via the secondary peer, since the secondary peer session was already established). I thought BGP was "intelligent" enough to run the TCP session over the directly connected interfaces on the same subnets. I can understand this being an issue with multihop but not multi-homing.
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:01 PM, Rakesh M <[email protected]> wrote: Whats the frequency of this message occurence ? On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Eric A Louie <[email protected]> wrote: When I had that problem, it was because the max-prefixes on the Juniper router was being triggered. If I remember correctly. It's a strange return message for the wrong issue. > > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Philip Lavine <[email protected]> >>To: NANOG list <[email protected]> >>Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:48 AM >>Subject: BGP from Juniper to Cisco ASR >> >> > >>Dec 18 07:46:33: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor <REMOTE PEER> >>active 2/5 (authentication failure) 0 bytes >>Dec 18 15:46:33.615: BGP: ses global <REMOTE PEER> (0x7FB1CD209CF0:0) act >>Receive NOTIFICATION 2/5 (authentication failure) 0 bytes >> >>Although I have seem this on the message boards I am little confused in that >>the ISP is telling me that there is no authentication enabled on the Juniper >>and I do not have authentication enabled on the ASR. So what is going on here? >> >> >> >> >
