[c-nsp] RIB-failure - anything to worry about?

[Dave Temkin]

My understanding of this is exactly how you've painted it.  RIB failure
generally means there's something else better in the routing table.  The
fact that you're still advertising them should show you that everything's
working correctly.

You stated yourself that the OSPF routes that are in the table *should* be
there, so you should definitely
expect to see a RIB failure on routes that are dupes in BGP.  It's nice
that BGP at least tells you this, versus other protocols where the only
way you can see it is with a debug ip routing...


-Dave

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Vincent De Keyzer wrote:

> Please allow me to repost this one - with all the BGP gurus on this list, I
> just can't believe that nobody can answer it...
>
> Vincent
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> > bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Vincent De Keyzer
> > Sent: lundi 20 février 2006 10:56
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [c-nsp] RIB-failure - anything to worry about?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just noticed that, on our IX router, there is a little 'r' in front of
> > the
> > advertised routes, which I don't see in front of the routes advertised to
> > our upstreams.
> >
> > BRUBLUro72#sh ip bgp neighbors X.Y.172.90 advertised-routes
> > BGP table version is 6257967, local router ID is 217.64.240.145
> > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
> > internal,
> >               r RIB-failure, S Stale
> > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
> >
> >    Network          Next Hop            Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> > r>iXXX.YYY.144.0/20   ZZZ.WWW.240.144           0    100      0 i
> > r>iAAA.BBB.0.0/18    ZZZ.WWW.240.144           0    100      0 i
> > r>iAAA.BBB.64.0/18   ZZZ.WWW.240.144           0    100      0 i
> > r>iZZZ.WWW.240.0/20  ZZZ.WWW.240.144           0    100      0 i
> > BRUBLUro72#
> >
> > When looking up CCO, it says that this can be caused by "Route with better
> > administrative distance already present in IGP . For example, if a static
> > route already exists in IP Routing table."
> >
> > This is the case, because those routes are known via OSPF (the static
> > route
> > to Null0 on the upstream routers is advertised in OSPF). But on the
> > upstream
> > routers, those routes are known via the static route, so what's the
> > difference?
> >
> > The other possible reason seems to be a memory failure.
> >
> > Is there anything to worry about?
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>