Interesting BGP peering

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Ivan Ostreš, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. Ivan Ostreš

    Ivan Ostreš Guest

    Hello all,

    I've been doing a VPN trough ADSL network and found out something
    interesting (still not sure what's really going on).

    I have a thing like this:

    RTR1751----ADSL-----ISP-----PIX515----C2621XM

    I'm running IPSec between RTR1751 and PIX515. Trough that VPN, I'm
    driving BGP - not for real routing, just as a mechanism that brings up
    VPN when address on ADSL changes and for the times when ADSL is dead, to
    bring up ISDN backup.

    RTR1751 has a default route to its dialer interface (PPPoE) and it has
    defined loopback as BGP peer-point. I can ping (using loopback as source
    address) loopback on C2621XM.

    The thing is that when using BGP, connection won't come up (I've set
    update-source and multihop feature). Debug says something like "...no
    route to destination / delaying OPEN message for xxxxx ms".

    When I add a host route (/32) on RTR1751 for C2621XM loopback,
    everything works fine.

    So, the final question is why ping works using just default route
    (loopback to loopback) while BGP won't send OPEN message (loopback to
    loopback) without /32 route for BGP endpoint?

    Anyone knows why?

    --
    -Ivan.

    *** Use Rot13 to see my eMail address ***
    Ivan Ostreš, Feb 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. eBGP must have a route in its table for peering with its neighbor; a default
    is not going to do.

    As for why,... normally, an eBGP peer must be off of a directly-connected
    interface. (Stability is my guess why this was done). EBGP multi-hop is a
    "hack" designed to get around that.

    Is your /32 route referencing the physical interface?

    On 02/19/2005 11:12 AM, in article
    , "Ivan Ostreš"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > Hello all,
    >
    > I've been doing a VPN trough ADSL network and found out something
    > interesting (still not sure what's really going on).
    >
    > I have a thing like this:
    >
    > RTR1751----ADSL-----ISP-----PIX515----C2621XM
    >
    > I'm running IPSec between RTR1751 and PIX515. Trough that VPN, I'm
    > driving BGP - not for real routing, just as a mechanism that brings up
    > VPN when address on ADSL changes and for the times when ADSL is dead, to
    > bring up ISDN backup.
    >
    > RTR1751 has a default route to its dialer interface (PPPoE) and it has
    > defined loopback as BGP peer-point. I can ping (using loopback as source
    > address) loopback on C2621XM.
    >
    > The thing is that when using BGP, connection won't come up (I've set
    > update-source and multihop feature). Debug says something like "...no
    > route to destination / delaying OPEN message for xxxxx ms".
    >
    > When I add a host route (/32) on RTR1751 for C2621XM loopback,
    > everything works fine.
    >
    > So, the final question is why ping works using just default route
    > (loopback to loopback) while BGP won't send OPEN message (loopback to
    > loopback) without /32 route for BGP endpoint?
    >
    > Anyone knows why?
    Brant I. Stevens, Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ivan Ostreš

    Ivan Ostreš Guest

    In article <BE3D39FE.51BAA%>, says...
    > eBGP must have a route in its table for peering with its neighbor; a default
    > is not going to do.
    >


    This could be a good explanation. Any references to some materials that
    would support your saying?

    > Is your /32 route referencing the physical interface?
    >


    No. It's refering to loopback interface of another router.

    --
    -Ivan.

    *** Use Rot13 to see my eMail address ***
    Ivan Ostreš, Feb 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Ivan Ostreš

    JNCIP#0136 Guest

    Here You go (You may need to scroll down a bit)
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/24.html#noroutes
    HTH,
    Cheers
    Alex

    "Ivan Ostre " <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <BE3D39FE.51BAA%>, says...
    > > eBGP must have a route in its table for peering with its neighbor; a

    default
    > > is not going to do.
    > >

    >
    > This could be a good explanation. Any references to some materials that
    > would support your saying?
    >
    > > Is your /32 route referencing the physical interface?
    > >

    >
    > No. It's refering to loopback interface of another router.
    >
    > --
    > -Ivan.
    >
    > *** Use Rot13 to see my eMail address ***
    JNCIP#0136, Feb 22, 2005
    #4
  5. Ivan Ostreš

    Ivan Ostreš Guest

    In article <cvg3qn$1sq$>,
    says...
    > Here You go (You may need to scroll down a bit)
    > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/24.html#noroutes
    >


    Thanks Alex, that's exactly what was happening and I fixed it the same
    way as suggested (I feel like I've reinvented hot water).

    --
    -Ivan.

    *** Use Rot13 to see my eMail address ***
    Ivan Ostreš, Feb 22, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gollum
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,712
    Vincent C Jones
    Dec 17, 2003
  2. harald rüger
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    530
    harald rüger
    Oct 25, 2004
  3. Sandy Manning

    IBGP Peering

    Sandy Manning, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    8,410
    Arnold Nipper
    Nov 29, 2004
  4. papi
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,209
    theapplebee
    Sep 8, 2009
  5. Kana
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    636
Loading...

Share This Page