Next-hop issue using iBGP

[Ondrej Zajicek]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 08:38:42AM +0300, Dean Belev (Neterra NMT) wrote:
>    Hi all,
> 
>    I was performing a home lab and decided to test a new scenario including
>    iBGP between a router and RS.
>    That's a brief scheme of the lab:
> 
>    ###
>                     5.5.5.1       5.5.5.2         6.6.6.100/24
>                              6.6.6.6/24
>    6.6.6.101/24
>    Router3 (as3)---eBGP---> Router2 (as2)---iBGP/not a rs_client---> RS
>    (as2)---eBGP / rs_client--- > Router1 (as1)
>    3.3.3.0/24                            2.2.2.0/24
> 
>    1.1.1.0/24
>    ###
> 
>    Since, as route 3.3.3.0/24 is seen in RS directly attached ( first asn is
>    as3) with next-hop 6.6.6.100 (I've set the next-hop manually into the RS's
>    config in bgp_in) I expect that Router1 should see it in the same way -
>    with hext-hop 6.6.6.100.

The question is whether you set manually real next-hop or bgp_next_hop
attribute. For BGP route propagation, bgp_next_hop attribute is more
important. You should check route attributes by 'show route 3.3.3.0/24
all' on RS and R1.

-- 
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo

Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
"To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://trubka.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/attachments/20120817/8b705cde/attachment-0001.asc>