My bad, I did not notice you mentioned the local-preference command, I was
referring to using the policy-statement. Sorry for the confusion.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: "Kent Yu" <kyu@opnet.com>
Cc: <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: protocol bgp group/neighbor local-preference
> 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