[c-nsp] BGP route won't advertise

[Jerry Bacon]

On 2/27/2013 4:28 PM, Randy wrote:
> a stab in the dark:
>
> on R1 BGP-
>
> a)is auto-summary enabled?
> or perhaps
> b)aggregate-addr with summary-only?

No, neither of those apply in this case. Auto-summary is disabled, and 
I'm not doing any aggregation.

>
> ./Randy
>
> --- On Wed, 2/27/13, Jerry Bacon <wireless at starbeam.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jerry Bacon <wireless at starbeam.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2/27/13 3:24 PM, Jerry Bacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> R1#sh ip bgp a.b.c.0/22
>>>> BGP routing table entry for a.b.c.0/22, version 406152
>>>> Bestpath Modifiers: always-compare-med,
>> deterministic-med
>>>> Paths: (1 available, best #1)
>>>>      Not advertised to any peer
>>>>      11xx1
>>>>        x.y.z.242 (metric 143360) from x.y.z.242 (x.y.z.242)
>>>>          Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
>>>> None of the issues that I have been able to find that might cause this
>>>> behaviour seem to apply. Any ideas on what more to look for?
>>> No IGP route to x.y.z.242 from R1 and BGP synchronization enabled?
>>> Prefix-list or AS-path filter list on your EBGP neighbor on R1?
>>> Next hop of R3 not reachable from EBGP neighbor (need next-hop-self?)
>>> No-export community getting applied by a route-map?
>> I'm using EIGRP as my IGP, synchronization is disabled, and
>> there is a good route to R3:
>>
>> R1#sh ip rou x.y.z.242
>> Routing entry for x.y.z.242/32
>>    Known via "eigrp 100", distance 170, metric 143360,
>> type external
>>    Redistributing via eigrp 100
>>    Last update from 10.1.25.130 on
>> GigabitEthernet2/0.283, 16:44:58 ago
>>    Routing Descriptor Blocks:
>>    * 10.1.25.130, from 10.1.25.130, 16:44:58 ago, via
>> GigabitEthernet2/0.283
>>        Route metric is 143360, traffic share count is 1
>>        Total delay is 5020 microseconds, minimum bandwidth is 172413 Kbit
>>        Reliability 255/255, minimum MTU 1514 bytes
>>        Loading 23/255, Hops 2
>>
>> I've tried with and without next-hop-self on R3, it doesn't
>> seem to make any difference.
>>
>> On R1, I have:
>>
>> ip as-path access-list 16 permit ^$
>> ip as-path access-list 16 permit ^11xx1
>> ip as-path access-list 16 deny _11xx1_
>> ip as-path access-list 16 permit .*
>>
>> On R4, I have:
>>
>> ip as-path access-list 10 permit ^11xx1
>> ip as-path access-list 10 deny _11xx1_
>> ip as-path access-list 10 permit .*
>>
>> I had to do this to keep from doing transit of other routes
>> from this customer.
>>

-- 
Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer