On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 10:19:59AM -0400, Kent Yu wrote:
> It works fine on our routers.
Ok let's pick a random route, I've got a policy-statement setting local
pref to 75, and local-preference statement on the eBGP neighbor it is
learned from at 50, and a local-preference on the group it is in at 90.
With the policy-statement:
12.164.224.0/21 *[BGP/170] 21:53:47, MED 0, localpref 75
Without the policy-statement:
12.164.224.0/21 *[BGP/170] 21:56:38, MED 0, localpref 100
Thus indicating the local-preference statement has no impact on learned
routes from eBGP neighbors. As someone mentioned offlist, you can use a
single prefix-list and match on the neighbor the route was received from,
but this is just plain nasty. I'm at a loss as to why someone would make a
neighbor statement for setting localpref on routes going out to iBGP peers
(which is almost never done), without providing a statement to set the
localpref when learned from eBGP peers (which is done quite often based
on the status of the peer (transit, backup transit, peer, depref'd peer,
etc), usually at the group level, but sometimes at the neighbor level).
This is 5.3R1.2 and all I have available to test with, so if there is
something I'm missing bug-wise please feel free to fill me in. :)
-- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 05 2002 - 10:42:36 EDT