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

[Vincent De Keyzer]

That's what it says, yes.

Thanks

Vincent

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-
> bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of kostas anagnopoulos
> Sent: mercredi 22 février 2006 15:02
> To: Vincent De Keyzer
> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] RIB-failure - anything to worry about?
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/