Re: Routing Table inconsistencies
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is probably a bone-head question, but what are the implications of inconsistent-as's? I know that I have _tons_ of bgp inconsitent-as paths, but no mbgp inconsistent-as paths. I also have 2 bgp peers, but only 1 mbgp peer. I would think if you only have 1 mbgp peer you could _not_ have any inconsistent-as paths as there is only one source for the mbgp information, so only 1 path. Right? ********************************************** Tim Winders, MCSE, CNE, CCNA Associate Dean of Information Technology South Plains College Levelland, TX 79336 Phone: 806-894-9611 x 2369 FAX: 806-894-1549 Email: TWinders@SPC.cc.tx.us ********************************************** On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, David Meyer wrote:
Well, this is likely going to follow the same pattern that you've demonstrated, that is, NASA prefixes that are advertised directly to AS10888 and to their providers. Situation is somewhat of an special case (that is not to say that inconsistent AS isn't a problem in general). Interestingly, I'm not seeing either of these at the moment, e.g.
orix.maoz.com#sh ip mbgp inconsistent-as
orix.maoz.com#
(doesn't seem to be a bug, as the 2 you mention aren't inconsistent at the moment)
Maybe we need to get rid of 10888.
Dave
Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <3B2E8E9E.F64048DF@21rst-century.com>; from tme@21rst-century.com on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Hello All;
We had a problem with a domain with two different AS paths in the BGP table, so I wrote a script to look for such problems.
There are two prefixes in the current MBGP tables here with such problems :
Date of BGP Dump Mon Jun 18 15:39:46 EDT 2001
ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix = 198.9.201.0 :
*> 198.9.201.0 160.81.38.225 75 0 1239 10888 i * 204.147.129.89 0 145 24 i
ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix = 198.9.202.0 :
* 198.9.202.0 204.147.129.89 0 145 24 i *> 160.81.38.225 75 0 1239 10888 i
And a total of 488 prefixes in the BGP tables with such problems !!!!!
The complete lists are contained in
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.inconsistency and http://www.multicasttech.com/status/bgp.inconsistency
I could update these regularly if there was any demand.
I may be obtuse, but I cannot see how this could be a good thing.
Regards Marshall Eubanks
T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.on-the-i.com
Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Check the status of multicast in real time : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OSF1) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iEYEARECAAYFAjsumTQACgkQTPuHnIooYby9sQCfZmnpRildo8Irzqrx8ZvEvMBR YVIAoJsoufICV+YMv+hbEwYaNxK/u234 =3anB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (1)
-
Tim Winders