On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 07:07:51PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
To cut Cisco some slack, OSPF has no simple overload bit, so you have to
raise your link metrics all the way for a somewhat crude and limited
emulation of IS-IS' overload bit. There are still possible setups where
'max-metric
Hi Ivan
I could not get the manual loop prevention thing working as whenever I
tried to set any tag while redistributing mp-ibgp to OSPF and then
match the same on other PE while importing into OSPF it did not work.
I was not able to see any tag being set.
However I have found a fix for this
So I have a single ASN and two sites that do not peer directly with each
other, but have eBGP with providers.
Site A takes full routes, advertises a /24
Site B takes defaults only, advertises a /24
I notice I do not get the route advertised at site B by any of my providers
at site A. Is this due
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:32:50AM -0700, Morgan McLean wrote:
So I have a single ASN and two sites that do not peer directly with each
other, but have eBGP with providers.
Site A takes full routes, advertises a /24
Site B takes defaults only, advertises a /24
I notice I do not get the
I'll test with it in my lab, I read about this but wasn't sure it was a
good idea. Site A has two routers, so wouldn't I receive the routes being
advertised from R1 level 3 R2?
Morgan
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:32:50AM
Hi,
Yes, this is because the 'domain-vpn-tag 0'. The other thing that it is
doing is to zeroes the tag.
What type of routing-instance you are using on the CE? To not have the
check on the CE you can use 'routing-instance type virtual-router' instead
of 'routing-instance type vrf'
Then you will
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:50:37AM -0700, Morgan McLean wrote:
I'll test with it in my lab, I read about this but wasn't sure it was a
good idea. Site A has two routers, so wouldn't I receive the routes being
advertised from R1 level 3 R2?
Depends on the very specific setup, wether R1+R2 are
On (2012-07-25 09:08 +0200), Daniel Roesen wrote:
As discussed offline, not when OSPF implementations follow OSPFv2 spec
from 1998, (the still current) RFC2328. I'm not aware that widely used
implementations behave different and am too lazy to lab that. :)
Just tried in 11.4R3 and 'overload'
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:32:50AM -0700, Morgan McLean wrote:
So I have a single ASN and two sites that do not peer directly with
each other, but have eBGP with providers.
Site A takes full routes, advertises a /24 Site B takes defaults only,
advertises a /24
I notice I do not get
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:41:56AM +0200, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 01:32:50AM -0700, Morgan McLean wrote:
So I have a single ASN and two sites that do not peer directly with each
other, but have eBGP with providers.
Site A takes full routes, advertises a /24
Site B
On 2012-07-24 10:34, Tobias Heister wrote:
Am 24.07.2012 07:21, schrieb Antti Ristimäki:
On 2012-07-23 16:22, Tobias Heister wrote:
The document about scaling with labeled bgp [2] has a section about 6PE but it
does not help much. First of all the method explained to get interface routes
to
Hi Ivan
Yes I understood the part for the domain-tag and also realized the
issue with instance-type for the routing-instance but unfortunately
since this was an existing network running over there I could not
change it back to virtual-router.
Regards
Varma
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Ivan
Dear All,
I have L2VPN between two PEs and I am using LT interfaces on logical
systems. Looks like the control plain operations are working
correctly,however, the forwarding plain doesn't seem to work. It could be
a bug or limitation of the LT interfaces. I will be glad if you can verify
that
Hi All,
We are trying to implement iBGP multipath.
R1 receives route 2.2.2.2 from R2 with NH=1.1.1.1
1.1.1.1 is an iBGP route learned through 2 iBGP peers (all attributes are
equal).
For 1.1.1.1 we can see two next-hops at both the RIB and FIB.
For 2.2.2.2 only 1 next hop is installed at both
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Michel de Nostredame
d.nos...@gmail.com wrote:
Good day,
I am recently working on an replacement of aged M10i; we are using
M10i to terminate multiple 100mbps/1gbps Metro-Ethernet from branch
buildings (FEs are aggregated on EX4200 and Layer2 uplink to M10i by
15 matches
Mail list logo
