[c-nsp] RIB_failure

[Phil Bedard]

If the ultimate goal is "no BGP rib-failure" then yes.  If the end  
goal is to steer traffic a certain direction then that may or may not  
be a proper solution.   I don't have the whole scenario so I can't say  
for sure.

Phil


On Jan 18, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Suzan S. wrote:

> I think we will loose points if we are getting RIB-Failure routes in  
> the lab exam, so I think we have to prefer the BGP routes and to  
> change the administrative distance for the iBGP routes! Is this the  
> right solution?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Phil Bedard <philxor at gmail.com> wrote:
> What are you trying to accomplish exactly? If you want to use the BGP
> routes as primary versus the IGP routes, you can set the
> administrative distance higher for the IGP learned routes. Suppress-
> inactive will keep the BGP peer from re-advertising those RIB-failure
> routes to another peer. RIB-Failure isn't necessarily a problem...
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:20 PM, Suzan S. wrote:
>
> > Dears,
> >
> > When advertiseing the loopbacks in the bgp , they appear as RIB-
> > failure routes in the BGP table as they are advertised through the
> > IGP which has better adminstrative distance. Any one knows how to
> > solve the problem of these RIB-failure Routes? Do we have to change
> > the administrative distance for the IGP or BGP ? In some documents I
> > read that we have to use the command bgp suppress-active under the
> > router bgp config but it does not work.
> >
> > Thank you All
> >
> > Suzan
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> > Search.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
> Try it now.