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

[kostas anagnopoulos]

do a "show ip bgp rib-failure" and if the reason for the failure is "Higher
admin distance" there's nothing to worry about

regards
Kostas

-----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: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:44 PM
To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] RIB-failure - anything to worry about?


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/

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.