On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:09:29PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
Hello,
I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can all routes updated
again
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:41:14AM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 8:47 PM, Dustin Lundquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To balance your inbound you can prepend your AS number to your
advertisements to depreference them. Some larger ISPs do this on a per
prefix basis, but since a
Hello,
I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can all routes updated
again.
Is there a way to save and later restore the RIB/FIB tables?
Since the only
Eduardo Meyer P=P0P?P8QP0:
Hello,
I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can all routes updated
again.
Is there a way to save and later restore the RIB
On Feb 18, 2008 5:39 PM, NetOne - Doichin Dokov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eduardo Meyer NAPISA:
Hello,
I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can
I have another doubt.
My peers have different bw connected to me, one peer is 20Mb/s and the
other is 30Mb/s.
I know I may be failing on some BGP concepts here, but this is my very
first time implementing full routing with 2 peers. So, please be
patient ;)
How should I balance, proportionally,
On Feb 18, 2008 8:47 PM, Dustin Lundquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To balance your inbound you can prepend your AS number to your
advertisements to depreference them. Some larger ISPs do this on a per
prefix basis, but since a sizable portion of ISPs are running Cisco gear
with a 256K prefix
Eduardo Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, I have a certain traffic outgoing to AS 4230, it was
going via AS17379, and with localpref I could make it go via 18881.
However, I need to balance it in the adequated ratio, say, make 40% of
outgoing traffic to 4230 go via 1881 while 60%
address.
Finally I removed the passive keyword. Now its OK with the first BGP
neighbor, I will setup the second tomorrow morning but probably there
wont be any other problem.
Thank you all and thanks for OpenBGP. Way simple, functional and much
better/clearer than cisco.
--
===
Eduardo Meyer
Hello everybody.
I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
reason myself, so I
#macros
peer_gvt=200.139.89.37
peer_intelig=200.184.196.18
#peer_intelig=201.70.200.1
# Configuracao Global
AS 28660
router
On 2008/01/16 13:43, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
reason myself, so I
holdtime 4
can your peers keep up
On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
reason myself, so I
holdtime 4
can your peers keep up with that? it's rather low.
Local host
* Eduardo Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-01-16 14:24]:
The problem I get is:
neighbor 200.184.196.18 (Intelig): state change Connect - OpenSent,
reason: Connection opened
tcp connection has been established and we sent our OPEN message to the
neighbor.
neighbor 200.184.196.18 (Intelig):
On Jan 16, 2008 11:43 AM, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
reason myself, so I
holdtime 4
can your
On 2008/01/16 12:33, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
I have lowered holdtime for testing purposes only. With default value
the behavior is the same. I have just forced local-address to another
one, with local-address 201.70.200.2 but still the same.
Here is the tcpdum output
that doesn't look like
On 2007/09/17 16:22, Erich wrote:
im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit
older, but did a good job so far.
I definitely recommend updating, 4.1-stable is probably the best
choice for you (at least, until 4.2 is out).
hi,
on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.
one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in
/etc/hostname.fxp0,
no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session
started there.
after manual configuration of the second interface and
* Erich [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 17:27]:
on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.
one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in
/etc/hostname.fxp0,
no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started
there.
after
On 5 Jun 2007, at 08:42, OndEej SurC= wrote:
Henning Brauer pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 15:38 +0200:
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-21 14:58]:
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're
sorted
but if you're
Henning Brauer pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 15:38 +0200:
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-21 14:58]:
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does
On 21 Apr 2007, at 14:38, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-21 14:58]:
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're
sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does your filters
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007, at 14:38, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-21 14:58]:
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're
sorted
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does your filters section look like ?
On 16 Apr 2007, at 16:28, OndEej SurC= wrote:
I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and
there
seems to be problem
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does your filters section look like ?
It's very simple now - none. But filters just modify prefixes accepted
and not coupling.
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-21 14:58]:
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does your filters section look like ?
It's very simple now -
Hi,
I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and there
seems to be problem with IPv6. I have tried google and irc, but without
success.
I am receiving IPv6 prefixes just fine (791 from upstream transit, 140
from local IX), but they are not exported to kernel routing tables.
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-16 17:40]:
I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and there
seems to be problem with IPv6. I have tried google and irc, but without
success.
I am receiving IPv6 prefixes just fine (791 from upstream transit, 140
from local
Henning Brauer pm9e v Po 16. 04. 2007 v 19:06 +0200:
* Ond??ej Sur?? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-16 17:40]:
I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and there
seems to be problem with IPv6. I have tried google and irc, but without
success.
I am receiving IPv6
Hello everyone,
I am testing some things with OpenBGPD and did run into following problem:
Test setup:
I have 3 cisco routers and 1 openbgp box.
The scenario;
- Cisco1 and Cisco2 are transit providers, Cisco3 is a customer transit customer
- OpenBGP is the main router
- There is a link between
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:21:35PM +0200, Thomas beta wrote:
Hello everyone,
I am testing some things with OpenBGPD and did run into following problem:
Test setup:
I have 3 cisco routers and 1 openbgp box.
The scenario;
- Cisco1 and Cisco2 are transit providers, Cisco3 is a customer
On 2007/03/27 22:21, Thomas beta wrote:
Now, if the link between the openbgp box and cisco3 fails, i still
will be announcing the /24 of cisco3 (i receive the prefix also from
cisco2). I cannot put a prefix filter on the incoming from the
transits, otherwise i will loose contact to the network
2007/3/27, Stuart Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 2007/03/27 22:21, Thomas beta wrote:
Now, if the link between the openbgp box and cisco3 fails, i still
will be announcing the /24 of cisco3 (i receive the prefix also from
cisco2). I cannot put a prefix filter on the incoming from
Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-07 09:54]:
I use route-maps in my quagga setup, but i do not see this options in
OpenBGP.
not having the route-map desaster was a design goal.
look at the filter language, it can do all you want.
there's a section about
Hi all,
Thanks for the replays.
I have my test setup running and for now I am very impressed by OpenBGP
performance.
I have some additional questions.
I use route-maps in my quagga setup, but i do not see this options in
OpenBGP. How can I achieve something similar to this route-map
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-03-07 09:54]:
I use route-maps in my quagga setup, but i do not see this options in
OpenBGP.
not having the route-map desaster was a design goal.
look at the filter language, it can do all you want.
there's a section about it in bgpd.conf(5) (yeah
is doing traffic shaping,
firewall and so on for DMZ and clients. The clients are only connected
by Metro Ethernet links.
If I do not describe the current situation well please let me know, I
will give more details.
I plan to change this setup with OpenBSD + OpenBGP boxes, one for each
ISP with IBGP
this setup with OpenBSD + OpenBGP boxes, one for each
ISP with IBGP between them and third box for firewall and client
connections, possibly the third box would be duplicated by another box
with CARP. I am looking for the best redundancy I could get.
However I may be wrong in my plan...
As I am
Hello,
actualy I'm using some Cisco equipment and one OpenBGPd Box to connect
the eBGP-Upstreams to my network. I want to replace this setup in the
next couple of month by two OpenBSD boxes. I planned to do it this way:
I want to connect some eBGP session to both boxes and an direct iBGP
link
On 2007/03/02 13:22, Falk Brockerhoff wrote:
This works fine apart of one bug in the
ospf-daemon when the carp-state changes and the local routes have to be
updated. But I'm confident that this will be fixed soon.
from http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2007-02/1155.html,
it
If you are new to OpenBSD and OpenBGP then I would-
a) setup a test box not in your production path
b) request your providers set up second peer sessions each, with each
'second session' going to the test box
c) get comfy with OpenBSD and OpenBGP with those two full tables from
your peers, just
Hi,
I had setup a private test network with the following information to test
openbgp:
OBSD-01
---
AS: 65213
IP: 10.0.111.77
OBSD-02
---
AS: 65123
IP: 172.16.111.77
My /etc/bgpd.conf configuration for OBSD-01 and for OBSD-02:
# OBSD-01
AS 65213
router-id 10.0.111.77
network
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-01-31 15:02]:
Hi,
I had setup a private test network with the following information to test
openbgp:
OBSD-01
---
AS: 65213
IP: 10.0.111.77
OBSD-02
---
AS: 65123
IP: 172.16.111.77
My /etc/bgpd.conf configuration
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:41 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Quagga and OpenBGP
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP
On 30/11/06, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
Zebra
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
Zebra/Quagga.
Side comments?
dems
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 01:40:44AM +0800, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 01:40 +0800, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared
Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2006.12.01 01:40:44 +0800:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared
On 11/30/06, Demuel I. Bendano, R.E.E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
I cannot still see the logic as to why Quagga is part of the OpenBSD ports
tree when it has OpenBGP at all in the default install? The documentation
of OpenBGP tells us that it is far superior in design as compared to
Zebra
in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OpenBGP---carp-interface-tf2513187.html#a7008786
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
* ClaudeBrassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-26 12:44]:
carp0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
carp: MASTER carpdev em0 vhid 1 advbase 1 advskew 100
groups: carp
inet 212.xxx.xxx.254 netmask 0xfffc broadcast 212.xxx.xxx.255
* Henning Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-26 12:59]:
* ClaudeBrassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-26 12:44]:
carp0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
carp: MASTER carpdev em0 vhid 1 advbase 1 advskew 100
groups: carp
inet 212.xxx.xxx.254
PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OpenBGP---carp-interface-tf2513187.html
Amsterdam
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OpenBGP---carp-interface-tf2513187.html#a7009690
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OpenBGP---carp-interface-tf2513187.html#a7009726
Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ok, I am pretty certain this is fixed in 4.0
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg Amsterdam
* ClaudeBrassel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-10-26 14:03]:
Some add-on :
If I start the session with the carp device I have following in the
/var/log/daemon :
Oct 26 13:48:12 bgp1 bgpd[31321]: nexthop 212.x.x.253 now valid: via
212.x.x.254
yes, as I said, this is because the ifindex is not set
Hi,
OpenBSD-current amd64 from around march, 20th.
Next to a reboot, OpenBGP had a problem validating NextHops :
Nexthop State
x.x.x.105 invalid vlan97 UP, Ethernet, no carrier, 100 MBit/s
I had about 30 addresses on different vlans in this case. This resulted in the
BGP
On 12/04/06, Sylvain Coutant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Shouldn't OpenBGP drop the session if the nexthop is not valid ?
Next hop and peer address does not have to be the same thing.
--
Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
I couldn't help
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:18:07PM +0200, Sylvain Coutant wrote:
Hi,
OpenBSD-current amd64 from around march, 20th.
Next to a reboot, OpenBGP had a problem validating NextHops :
Nexthop State
x.x.x.105 invalid vlan97 UP, Ethernet, no carrier, 100 MBit/s
What
What was the state of the parent interface and what kind of interface is
it?
Bge driver. It was up and running : BGP sessions were established through the
vlans reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
ifconfig down should not crash the box. Panic message and trace would be
interesting
On 12/04/06, Sylvain Coutant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was the state of the parent interface and what kind of interface is
it?
Bge driver. It was up and running : BGP sessions were established through
the vlans reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
ifconfig down should not crash the box
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:36:46PM +0200, Sylvain Coutant wrote:
What was the state of the parent interface and what kind of interface is
it?
Bge driver. It was up and running : BGP sessions were established
through the vlans reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
I bet Henning's diff will fix
as invalid by OpenBGP.
ifconfig down should not crash the box. Panic message and trace would
be
interesting.
It was remote and we did a hard reboot without console access. Log files
were empty.
No, the session and the nexthop are two different things.
I agree. My point
reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
I bet Henning's diff will fix this.
ifconfig down should not crash the box. Panic message and trace would
be
interesting.
It was remote and we did a hard reboot without console access. Log files
were empty.
Bummer.
No, the session
* Sylvain Coutant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-12 12:21]:
Hi,
OpenBSD-current amd64 from around march, 20th.
Next to a reboot, OpenBGP had a problem validating NextHops :
Nexthop State
x.x.x.105 invalid vlan97 UP, Ethernet, no carrier, 100 MBit/s
the reason
reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
I bet Henning's diff will fix this.
chances are good, at least.
Index: kroute.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/bgpd/kroute.c,v
retrieving revision 1.145
diff -u -p -r1.145 kroute.c
--- kroute.c22 Mar
. It was up and running : BGP sessions were established
through the vlans reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
I bet Henning's diff will fix this.
ifconfig down should not crash the box. Panic message and trace would
be
interesting.
It was remote and we did a hard reboot without
Funny, I also have this :
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child: session engine terminated; signal 11
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[31105]: fatal in RDE: rde_dispatch_imsg_session: pipe
closed
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child: route decision engine exited
Once every two or three weeks.
Funny, I also have this :
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child: session engine terminated;
signal 11
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[31105]: fatal in RDE: rde_dispatch_imsg_session:
pipe closed
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child: route decision engine exited
I forgot to see it but
* Sylvain Coutant [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-12 15:58]:
Funny, I also have this :
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child: session engine terminated; signal
11
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[31105]: fatal in RDE: rde_dispatch_imsg_session: pipe
closed
Apr 12 16:48:29 x bgpd[10601]: Lost child:
kind of
interface
is
it?
Bge driver. It was up and running : BGP sessions were established
through the vlans reported as invalid by OpenBGP.
I bet Henning's diff will fix this.
ifconfig down should not crash the box. Panic message and trace
would
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
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 :-)
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:46:24AM +0100, tony sarendal wrote:
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
On 04/04/06, Claudio Jeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 11:46:24AM +0100, tony sarendal wrote:
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 :)
Hello,
I'm just playing around with OpenBGP on OpenBSD3.8. My BGP Session
comes up, MD5 works fine. OpenBGP is a intuitiv tool and works fine. :)
But I didn't find any documentation for migrating some parts of my
cisco config to openbgpd. I configured internal BGP between my core-
router
* Falk Brockerhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-29 12:38]:
Hello,
I'm just playing around with OpenBGP on OpenBSD3.8. My BGP Session
comes up, MD5 works fine. OpenBGP is a intuitiv tool and works fine. :)
But I didn't find any documentation for migrating some parts of my
cisco config
Am 29.03.2006 um 14:11 schrieb Henning Brauer:
Hi Henning, hello list,
njet. we don't have any aggregate code, and you're the first one ever
to ask :)
Hm, it's unbelievable that I'm the first asking for aggregation :) I
can do aggregation on my core-router, but I think aggregation should
that makes your other routes have a
route to that... like OpenOSPFD :)
or rewrite nexthop so you can run without an IGP.
When I tested openbgp I did that with the filter and set, although
next-hop-self
would have been nice.
/Tony
On Cisco I configured
neighbor 10.0.0.2 next-hop-self, but how to do this with openbgp?
that, again, is sth nobody ever asked for or missed :)
however, the (completely untested except for compilation) diff below
should add set nexthop self.
Index: bgpd.h
How come Cisco doesn't send me
nexthop usages are a hack
around a network design error. No matter if it is on OpenBSD, cisco or
whatever.
When I tested openbgp I did that with the filter and set, although
next-hop-self
would have been nice.
BTW: setting up an IGP for your network is not that complex. Just have a
look
On 29/03/06, Falk Brockerhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 29.03.2006 um 14:11 schrieb Henning Brauer:
Hi Henning, hello list,
njet. we don't have any aggregate code, and you're the first one ever
to ask :)
Hm, it's unbelievable that I'm the first asking for aggregation :) I
can do
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:32:17PM +0200, Falk Brockerhoff wrote:
Am 29.03.2006 um 14:11 schrieb Henning Brauer:
Hi Henning, hello list,
njet. we don't have any aggregate code, and you're the first one ever
to ask :)
Hm, it's unbelievable that I'm the first asking for aggregation :) I
On 29/03/06, Claudio Jeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:33:15PM +0100, tony sarendal wrote:
The second problem is, that I want to announce an external
full-feed,
received with openbgpd, to my core-router. This works fine, but the
next-hop is the ip-adress of
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:22:13PM +0100, tony sarendal wrote:
On 29/03/06, Claudio Jeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:33:15PM +0100, tony sarendal wrote:
The second problem is, that I want to announce an external
full-feed,
received with openbgpd, to my
On 29/03/06, Claudio Jeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did not talk about redistributing BGP information into an IGP (that's
totaly sick). I'm talking about the need for an IGP to glue your network
correctly together so that BGP is working as it should.
That was not what I was talking about
Falk Brockerhoff wrote:
Hello,
I'm just playing around with OpenBGP on OpenBSD3.8. My BGP Session comes
up, MD5 works fine. OpenBGP is a intuitiv tool and works fine. :)
Just a word of BIG caution on this MD5 usage. There was a bug corrected
in 3.9 for MD5 when the remote reset the session
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
Falk Brockerhoff wrote:
Hello,
I'm just playing around with OpenBGP on OpenBSD3.8. My BGP Session
comes up, MD5 works fine. OpenBGP is a intuitiv tool and works fine. :)
Just a word of BIG caution on this MD5 usage. There was a bug corrected
in 3.9 for MD5 when
7200 router doing BGP. I offered to remove the
router and use OpenBGP on the OpenBSD firewalls instead, thus achieving
failover on BGP too. But I don't know whether this is a good idea or
should I add 2 more OpenBSD systems specifically for BPG?
in prinicple, usinf bgpd on teh same machines
the
router and use OpenBGP on the OpenBSD firewalls instead, thus achieving
failover on BGP too. But I don't know whether this is a good idea or
should I add 2 more OpenBSD systems specifically for BPG?
TIA
Paolo
PS - The FWs will be single CPU Dell PowerEdge 1850 systems with
(probably) 1GB RAM.
OpenBSD and CARP. In
front of
the FW there is a Cisco 7200 router doing BGP. I offered to
remove the
router and use OpenBGP on the OpenBSD firewalls instead, thus
achieving
failover on BGP too. But I don't know whether this is a good idea or
should I add 2 more OpenBSD systems specifically
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-02-12 02:20]:
I read somewhere that there was a 'Looking Glass' implementaion 'in the
works' for OpenBSD/OpenBGP 3.9. I was wondering if that was the case?
there is an additional read-only control socket now where bgpctl can
attach as well, so all
I read somewhere that there was a 'Looking Glass' implementaion 'in the
works' for OpenBSD/OpenBGP 3.9. I was wondering if that was the case?
Thanks,
Glenn
Hello,
I'm trying to play around with OpenBGP 3.8 communities and I'd like to define
several communities depending on the peers. When I set communities this way :
match to any set community x:10
match to any set community x:20
Only x:20 will be set. Each set statement wipes out previous
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:06:42PM +0100, Sylvain Coutant wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to play around with OpenBGP 3.8 communities and I'd like to
define several communities depending on the peers. When I set
communities this way :
match to any set community x:10 match to any set community x
There is a feature in 3.8 that let you only set one community per AS.
This is fixed in -current.
OK.
BTW, how one could remove community tags ?
BR,
--
Sylvain COUTANT
ADVISEO
http://www.adviseo.fr/
http://www.open-sp.fr/
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:08:29PM +0100, Sylvain Coutant wrote:
There is a feature in 3.8 that let you only set one community per AS.
This is fixed in -current.
OK.
BTW, how one could remove community tags ?
Have a look at the cvs log:
-
Implement set community delete 65001:* and
Hi,
Try:
announce IPv4 unicast
announce IPv6 unicast
Nothing does :(
--
Sylvain COUTANT
ADVISEO
http://www.adviseo.fr/
http://www.open-sp.fr/
The works for me perring with the OCCAID network:
www:occaid.net
and Hurricane Electric's Tunnel Broker Service:
http://tunnelbroker.net
Both Cisco based equipmentthere must be something else wrong in the
configuration...
Glenn
Hi,
Try:
announce IPv4 unicast
101 - 200 of 220 matches
Mail list logo
