[c-nsp] Loop/Unreachable problem with C6500/SUP720

[Randy]

...also curious:

If there is a discrepancy between "sh ip cef <perfix>" and "sh ip cef <prefix> internal" for prefixes in question.

Regards,
./Randy

--- On Wed, 8/8/12, Sebastian Wiesinger <cisco-nsp at ml.karotte.org> wrote:

> From: Sebastian Wiesinger <cisco-nsp at ml.karotte.org>
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Loop/Unreachable problem with C6500/SUP720
> To: "Cisco NSP" <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 12:07 PM
> * Xu Hu <jstuxuhu0816 at gmail.com>
> [2012-08-08 18:30]:
> > Are this routes all running in the ospf and bgp at the
> same time? If yes, it is a normal behaviour.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> as Gert pointed out, the networks are connected (I also have
> another
> network, which is a static route (redistributed into OSPF),
> which is
> showing the same behaviour.
> 
> If Routes are in OSPF and BGP administrative distance would
> decide
> which protocol wins. That single IPs in a network show
> different
> forwarding caracteristics (leaving out load-balancing) is
> not normal
> behaviour.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> -- 
> GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82
> 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
> 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE
> ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
>             -- Terry
> Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>