Hi,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:00:50PM +1000, Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA) wrote:
MED should not be used under this scenario as both the upstream routes
are from different providers. Unless both providers have agreed upon a
MED benchmark value, it is not wise to use MED for route selection. It
is
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11:26 PM
To: Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA)
Cc: Collins, Richard (EXT); cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Late night BGP puzzler
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:00:50PM +1000, Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 08:38:36AM -0700, Peter Kranz wrote:
Unfortunately, MED comes too late in the process for this example (equal as
path length routes from 2 different AS#, one IGP and one EGP).
The Origin (step 5) of both was IGP.
2914 701 668
128.241.219.33 from 128.241.219.33
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:25:07PM +0100, Euan Galloway wrote:
The difference was at step 7 Prefer eBGP over iBGP paths.
Which thankfully comes before step 6 Prefer the path with the lowest
multi-exit discriminator (MED). (huge list of med related caveats apply).
Unless we changed
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:43:20PM +1000, Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA) wrote:
Because ebgp routes are preferred over ibgp routes.
Thats is a tie breaker if the MED is equal. Which it isn't.
So indeed this is puzzling.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Because ebgp routes are preferred over ibgp routes.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2007 4:33 PM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] Late night BGP puzzler
I can't for the life of me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gert Doering) wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:43:20PM +1000, Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA) wrote:
Because ebgp routes are preferred over ibgp routes.
Thats is a tie breaker if the MED is equal. Which it isn't.
So indeed this is puzzling.
I'd say his router wants
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/08/07 08:07
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED], cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
cc
Subject
Re: [c-nsp] Late night BGP puzzler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gert Doering) wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:43:20PM
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:54:16AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:43:20PM +1000, Gunjan GANDHI (BR/EPA) wrote:
Because ebgp routes are preferred over ibgp routes.
Thats is a tie breaker if the MED is equal. Which it isn't.
So indeed this is puzzling.
Um
eBGP prefer to iBGP
On 8/1/07, Peter Kranz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out why this won't select path #2 as the
best path.. can someone unravel what I'm missing.. My goal is to get it to
resolve the equal length AS path dispute using the Cost community.
Path #1
in..
/Eduard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manu Chao
Sent: woensdag 1 augustus 2007 12:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Late night BGP puzzler
eBGP prefer to iBGP
On 8/1/07, Peter
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Collins, Richard
(EXT)
Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2007 11:24 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Late night BGP puzzler
What about using the command 'bgp always-compare-med' under the bgp
router?
If I understand
12 matches
Mail list logo
