[j-nsp] MX480 - 10.4R4.5 BGP

[Diogo Montagner]

>Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3?
Probably, yes. Do a show route extensive in few inactive prefix and it will
tell you the reason why it is in inactive state.


>What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2
and 3 on our traffic?
The tie break will move to the next criteria.

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos11.4/topics/reference/general/routing-ptotocols-address-representation.html

HTH

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Keith <kwoody at citywest.ca> wrote:

> Is this why we have such a low number of active prefixes on peer 2 and 3?
>
> What would be the effects of removing the local-preference 50 from peer 2
> and 3 on our traffic?
>



./diogo -montagner
JNCIE-SP 0x41A