[c-nsp] BGP sanity check
Chuck Church
chuckchurch at gmail.com
Sun Dec 9 10:37:37 EST 2012
Anyone,
Need a quick BGP sanity check. My AS has two BGP routers, each
peered to one upstream via eBGP taking full table. iBGP between my two. No
filtering between the two of mine, and next hop self set on both towards
each other. My bgp summary on the two looks like this:
RTR 1:
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ
Up/Down State/PfxRcd
X.Y.39.3 4 MYAS 665455 2122859 23750575 0 0
2d12h 412485
216.215.152.1 4 11456 10228874 1416655 23750552 0 0 8w6d
430611
RTR 2:
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ
Up/Down State/PfxRcd
68.115.217.2 4 20115 235949 42325 4522187 0 0 2d12h
432461
X.Y.39.5 4 MYAS 195578 258293 4522187 0 0
2d12h 99941
I'm stumped trying to see why there is such a big difference between the
prefixes received between the two. I confirmed with 'sh ip bgp nei x' that
RTR 1 is truly only sending 99,000 or so routes, even though it's taken the
full table from upstream.
I'm thinking this might be because RTR 2's eBGP has the better path to most
destinations compared to RTR 1, thus RTR 1 sees this and doesn't send those
prefixes back towards RTR 2. Does that sound right?
Here's a prefix in question:
RTR 2:
BGP routing table entry for 209.209.144.0/20, version 3845458
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table default)
Advertised to update-groups:
9
20115 1299 4323 10397, (received & used)
68.115.217.2 from 68.115.217.2 (96.34.212.228)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best
RTR 1:
BGP routing table entry for 209.209.144.0/20, version 23114388
Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Not advertised to any peer
<------------------------------------- This tells me it's not sent, trying
to figure out why
20115 1299 4323 10397
X.Y.39.3 from X.Y.39.3 (X.Y.39.3)
Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
11456 7029 1299 4323 10397, (received & used)
216.215.152.1 from 216.215.152.1 (64.89.64.134)
Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external
Anything else I should look for?
Thanks,
Chuck
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list