[c-nsp] RIB_failure

[Suzan S.]

Thank you all for this info.
  Thanks Scott

Scott Morris <smorris at ipexpert.com> wrote:
  RIB failure is not necessarily a bad thing. There's no blanket response to
when/why to worry about it. You'll need to really evaluate what the route
is, why you are learning it from BGP and the IGP and see whether it matters.

Phil's correct, bgp backdoor is really designed for a specific purpose, and
that's not to just get rid of the "r>" appearance!

If you filter it in your IGP and let BGP win, you have the potential for
introducing a routing loop, or causing other things to fail when it comes to
recursive lookups.

So you really need to evaluate the why/wherefor that you have duplicates to
begin with before you can determine the appropriate solution for each
specific problem.

HTH,


Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M
#153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor

A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!

smorris at ipexpert.com



Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com





-----Original Message-----
From: nobody at groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody at groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Phil
Bedard
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:37 AM
To: Suzan S.
Cc: Cielieska Nathan; ccielab at groupstudy.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] RIB_failure

Backdoor is used for the opposite scenario, where you want to use IGP routes
over EBGP routes, which by default have a lower admin 
distance. You use the backdoor statement to set the EBGP route 
distance to 200, the same as an IBGP learned route.

Phil


On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Suzan S. wrote:

> Dear Cielieska,
>
> But is it recomended to change the administrative distance?
> Some guys suggested to add the network backdoor command to solve the 
> problem which is better than changing the adminstrative distance.
>
> Thank you
> Suzan
>
> Cielieska Nathan wrote:
> Suzan,
>
> In my experience, this is by design. The RIB failure is blocking BGP 
> from putting this route into the routing table because the IGP with 
> the lower administrative distance has trumped it. If you set the BGP 
> routes lower than the admin distance of the IGP, the BGP router will 
> kick those routes out of RIB-failure state.
>
> Regards,
> Nate
> 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.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> _
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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/

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at: 
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html



       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.