[c-nsp] BGPoPPPoEoA ?!

[omar parihuana]

Hi,

mmmh maybe I'm wrong but the BGP session between CE-PE only can be eBGP and
is necessary one peer directly connected...  for iBGP is possible to use
loopbacks, etc, etc...

Rgds.




On 11/15/07, Adam Greene <maillist at webjogger.net> wrote:
>
> Lots of o's in that subject line ...
>
> I'm trying to set up a BGP session over a PPPoEoA DSL line. This is in the
> context of setting up redundant DSL lines to a single provider router. I
> control both ends (PE and CE). PE is 7200 NPE 200, IOS 12.3(15b). CE is
> 1841, IOS 12.4(17).
>
> I can't establish the BGP session. Both sides are in active state, but
> won't go further.
>
> The PE ATM interface is configured as IP unnumbered pointing to Loopback
> 0. The CE BGP neighbor thus points to the PE Loopback IP address. The PE BGP
> neighbor points to the IP address assigned to the CE Dialer (a /32 from the
> /23 block on the PE Loopback).
>
> I saw that the CE was reporting that the external BGP neighbor is not
> directly connected, so I issued "neighbor A.B.C.D disable-connected-check"
> to no avail.
>
> I tried specifying the update-source interface on both ends (loopback 0 on
> PE, Dialer1 on CE) again to no avail.
>
> I'm wondering if I have to do something at the neighbor A.B.C.D transport
> level, like disabling path-mtu-discovery (this is a wild shot in the dark).
>
> Has anyone else successfully established BGP over PPPoEoA before?
>
> If this doesn't work, I'll set up redundancy by tracking objects ... but
> that will involve an upgrade of the PE IOS.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>



-- 
Omar E.P.T
-----------------
Certified Networking Professionals make better Connections!