[c-nsp] BGP received-routes

[Liviu Pislaru]

hello,

it seems like you are talking about eBGP;
one possible scenario for your case is that you don't have an entry 
in RIB for next-hop AA.AA.AA.16 (for example because on 
neighbor router AA.AA.AA.1 the subnet used for your BGP connection
is secondary on a SVI interface) and also have configured
command "soft-reconfiguration inbound" on your side.
plese provide as more details about the BGP configuration.

--
liviu.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dmitry Kiselev" <dmitry at dmitry.net>
To: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP received-routes


> Hello!
> 
> I see strange behaviour with BGP updates on my 7600/sup720
> runing 12.2(18)SXF7 IOS.  Seems update message received from BGP
> neighbor stored in received-routes but failed to enter actual
> RIB. It is very good seen by tracking next-hop attribute:
> 
> 
> 7600-12.2(18)SXF7#sh ip bgp XX.XX.XX.0/22
> 
> BGP routing table entry for XX.XX.XX.0/22, version 3021883
> Paths: (12 available, best #9, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
>  Advertised to update-groups:
>     4          10
> ...
>  111 222 333
>    AA.AA.AA.16 from AA.AA.AA.1 (AA.AA.AA.1)
>      Origin IGP, localpref 150, valid, external, best
>  111 222 333, (received-only)
>    AA.AA.AA.14 from AA.AA.AA.1 (AA.AA.AA.1)
>      Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external
> ...
> 
> 
> Just "clear in" command fix the issue:
> 
> 
> 7600-12.2(18)SXF7#clear ip bgp AA.AA.AA.1 in
> 
> 7600-12.2(18)SXF7#sh ip bgp XX.XX.XX.0/22
> BGP routing table entry for XX.XX.XX.0/22, version 3022271
> Paths: (12 available, best #9, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
>  Advertised to update-groups:
>     4          10
> ...
>  111 222 333
>    AA.AA.AA.14 from AA.AA.AA.1 (AA.AA.AA.1)
>      Origin IGP, localpref 150, valid, external, best
>  111 222 333, (received-only)
>    AA.AA.AA.14 from AA.AA.AA.1 (AA.AA.AA.1)
>      Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external
> ...
> 
> A quick seek on cisco.com/google does not provide any cluefull info :(
> Bug is stable and repeatable with few other prefixes at least from two
> separate neighbors.
> 
> Any ideas? Which additional info needed?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry Kiselev
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>