[Xorp-users] Route Redistribution issue in BGP - Kindly help asap.
Santhosh Sundararaman
santhosh at ku.edu
Thu Oct 26 00:29:04 PDT 2006
Hi,
I have a BGP router that is peered to one E-BGP peer and one I-BGP
peer. There are several routers in the local AS and OSPF is the IGP. I
am trying to redistribute the OSPF routes into BGP such that the OSPF
routes are advertised to the EBGP peer but not the IBGP peer. The
following is the configuration I am using.
protocols {
bgp {
bgp-id: 172.16.10.3
local-as: 65001
export: "routes_as1_to_as2"
peer 172.16.10.1 { /* EBGP Peer*/
local-ip: 172.16.10.3
as: 65002
next-hop: 172.16.10.3
holdtime: 120
ipv4-unicast: true
}
peer 10.5.11.1 { /*IBGP Peer*/
local-ip: 10.10.11.2
as: 65001
next-hop: 10.10.11.2
holdtime: 120
ipv4-unicast: true
}
}
}
policy {
policy-statement "routes_as1_to_as2" {
term "ospf_routes" {
from {
protocol: "ospf4"
}
to {
neighbor: 172.16.10.1
}
then {
accept /*adv ospf routes to EBGP Peer*/
}
}
term "reject_ospf4_to_ibgp_peer" {
from {
protocol: "ospf4"
}
to {
neighbor: 10.5.11.1
}
then {
reject /*Rej ospf routes to IBGP Peer*/
}
}
}
}
On using this policy the routes get advertised to both EBGP and IBGP
peers and "reject_ospf_to_ibgp_peer" term appears to be ignored. I have
tried specifying "reject_ospf_to_ibgp_peer" without any
to{neighbor:10.5.11.1} rule, in which case the routes were not
advertised to any of the peers. Am I missing something??
The address matched against the neighbor variable in the to {} rules, is
the address of the interface of the peer to which peering is establish
and not the bgp-id of the peer, is that correct or should it have been
the peers bgp-id instead.
Also inside the bgp protocol construct when specifying the peers, should
the peer address be the bgp-id of the peer, or can it be any one of the
several interface addresses of the peer which may not be the bgp-id.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Santhosh
More information about the Xorp-users
mailing list