a customer of us asked if C2911 (to be bought) is ok for partial BGP routes.This is the situation: 2 cisco 2911, each peering with 3 other AS (AS1, AS2, AS3), and maybe, in the future, at a small IXP (AS4, AS5, AS6, AS7).They will accept defaults plus partial routes from upstream AS1, AS2, AS3.When deployed at the IXP they also will accept partial routes from AS4-7.So, is 2911 ok for that configuration?the default route is included in the first row of as-path, isn't it?I have no experience with partial routes, only with full (for our datacenter) and default only (for other customers).
My client has MPLS network via eBGP to communicate with all the sites. Here is the basic config on the router.router eigrp 65210.neighbor 192.168.1.2 remote-as 13939
When they installed the internet on the local router, and added the static route on the router to hit the internet, they need to add the static route (2nd one) to communicate to the other sites.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 75.75.75.1
ip route 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.2
ip route 172.20.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.2
They want to route all the traffic out thru the local intenet besides their private networks ( 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.20.0.0/16). Are there ways not to add last two static routes and communicate the other sites via eBGP?
Is there a way in EIGRP to prefer external routes versus internal routes. EIGRP always picks up internal routes as long as they are available, no matter if external routes have better metric. Our Scenario is that we have DMVPN hub and spoke topology running EIGRP 101. The Core routers also on EIGRP 101 prefer EIGRP 101 routes. We have the new MPLS network running BGP and redistributing these BGP routes into EIGRP 101. The core routers prefer EIGRP 101 routes (internal) to redistributed BGP (external) routes.
We are in the process of upgrading the bandwidth at a few offices. Each currently have a 2xT-1 connection but have high utilization on the circuit which is why they are being upgraded. We are trying to decide b/t either a partial DS3 or metro ethernet connection. Are there pros/cons b/t the two in order to decide which to go with? Cost is not an issue. Some say going with a partial DS3 circuit offers benefits over metro ethernet such as network-based failover, end-to-end availability is better with DS-3 and QoS.
I am getting some weir behaviour in my LMS 4.2 setup. I am doing and Archiveupdate job and am receiving a partial success for roughly 1400 devices. Here is some output.
Execution Result: STARTUP CM0057 PRIMARY STARTUP Config fetch SUCCESS, archival failed for xxxxxx Cause: CM0210 Unable to generate processed config Action: Verify that archive exists for device. RUNNING
[code]...
I went on and checked the dcmaservice log file.I found the following entry at the same time of this particulair job
ERROR,[Thread-72920],com.cisco.nm.xms.xdi.pkgs.SharedDcmaIOS.analyzer.IOSConfigletRules,loadRules,42,Could not locate configlet rule file : com/cisco/nm/xms/xdi/pkgs/SharedDcmaIOS/analyzer/IOSConfigletRules.ser [ date taken out ],ERROR,[Thread-72920],com.cisco.nm.rmeng.dcma.configmanager.DeviceArchiveManager,archiveNewVersionIfNeeded,1115,CM0210 Unable to generate processed config
I then searched if I had the IOSConfigletRules.set file on the box. And no it is not there. My question is this the reasson that I have som manny partial sucess archive results?
We had an interesting situation after an electrical storm moved through where a few of our dual WAN clients didn't have any Internet connectivity. Generally speaking, they are on a wireless broadband and something like DSL/cable/T1. One customer in particular has a cisco 1941 router setup for dual WAN which tested fine during install (pull either connection, external IP changes dynamically and no difference is noticed by user). Well, this storm knocked the wireless broadband out enough that it wasn't usable, but would respond to pings randomly. Because the wireless is the fastest of the two connections it has a higher priority but because it was down but still responded to some pings, the traffic didn't go through the DSL that didn't go down. how to make the dual WAN more reliable in these partial-down situations? I thought about playing with the network service detection (we have a customer on an RV042 who experienced the same problem) but am not real sure what I could change that would make the connection more reliable, especially on the 1941 router.
We are running Sharepoint 2007(sp3 and wss sp3) on a dell pe2950 running Server 2003 std x64 sp2, 4 146gb 15k sas raid 10, 16gb ram, dual xeon 516 3ghz. the network card is a quad port intel 1gb pci-x server nic. Was running broadcom net xtreme dual port onboard, and had the same issue.
We are losing partial network connection, after about 14-15 hours of the machine working correctly. What happens is that it cannot ping, or access, any machines not on the same network segment(this machine is on 192.168.3.* and cannot access machines, or be accessed from 192.168.2.*, 192.168.4.*, etc, etc). what i have found is that when i try to ping 192.168.2.210(our dns, dhcp server). its times out about 20 times and replies 2-3 times, and then repeats the cycle all over again. i have done a winsock reset on the machine, and sometimes it starts back up and works again, sometimes it doesn't.
I would like to know how long a route would maintain its community tag when it traverses ***?Basically, a route is tagged 100:1000 when exiting AS100, and then accepted into AS200. AS200 will not modify the tag. Would AS200 export the route to AS300 with the same 100:1000 tag?
My 2811 is connected with two ISP,s as below and have VPN with Central branch.I want to set DSL as primary and WiMax as secondary but problem is that routes learned via BGP get precedence over default route as they are specific one.I think i may need to put all static specific routes of central branch over DSL along defautl but I want any idea if my default route stay active and when it down then BGP neighborship can be establish (like ip sla tracking.)
I have a mixed WAN environment with both eBGP and EIGRP routes. The BGP routes should always take precedence, when they exist. If no BGP routes exist I want the router to fail over to using the EIGRP routes. So far, this works fine.
The problem is, when the BGP route again becomes available (and the associated entry appears in the "sh ip bgp ... received-routes" output) the router is NOT relinquishing the EIGRP route. It remains in effect, showing as a "D" route int the route table even though there is a better ("B") route available. If I bounce EIGRP or the interface associated with it, the EIGRP route disappears and the BGP route reasserts itself, and everything will run correctly until the next time the BGP route disappears due to maintenance, line failure, etc.
My router is (C2900-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 15.3(1)T
Here's the associated config interface Tunnel101 description VPN backup WAN interface bandwidth 7168 ip address 192.168.75.1 255.255.255.0 [code].....
I am imagining a smallish networking (AS1234) with say three full BGP table peers that provide transit to the network (just to keep the maths simple here); Lets say AS100 and AS200 are preferred transit providers with AS300 as a backup/least prefered (AS prepends or similar stop us from using this network by default). So in this scenario our little network gets two different paths across the Internet, as not to rely solely on one provided, with a backup provider to hand also.
How do you mange issues like packet loss somewhere in AS100's or AS200's network? So lets say a host on our AS1234 network is talking to host in AS888 and the preferred route is through AS100 but somewhere deep in AS100 a link is flapping (for example) and I can't get to AS888 reliably through there anymore, but I can through to other peers of AS100 OK. We can postulate that AS100 is the best path for 50% of the Internet and AS200 for the other 50% (this is a best case fictional scenario). I can't ping 50% of the internet via AS100 and then in the event a ping fails (or some other more reliable test) tear down the BGP session to use AS100 until it's fixed again, nor vice versa with AS200.
First of all, I asume you don't know about the issue between AS100 and AS888 until someome moans about it to you? Secondly, do you then some how modify the route(s) to AS888 that come from AS100 (route map for example to change the weight or preference) so AS200 is now preferred for AS888? Do you infact shut down the AS100 peering and now use AS200 & AS300? How do you rectify these situations that are beyond you control using what is in your control?
I have setup an eBGP session to a Cisco 2801 CE router. The BGP session establish, however, the session keeps resetting after 90 sec which is the BGP keepalive holdtime value.
On the PE router I found that the OutQ doesn't clear = 22 when doing a "sh ip bgp x.x.x.x summary" - Session reset at 1:30.When I filter the amount of routes advertized to the CE neighbor with the "neighbor x.x.x.x prefix-list out" - I see the OutQ clear = 0 and the BGP session remains up.
-Number of NRLI advertized without prefix filter = 172 -Number of NLRI after filter = 52
I have an HP OfficeJet J4500 that works fine with shareport on my Win7 x64 computer. the XP and Win2000 ones both have the same "partial page then lockup" problem. when this happens, the only way to disconnect shareport is to reboot the router. It shows connected to the same computer even if I reboot that computer. I started with V1?? from the install disk then tried 3 and finally 4 with no improvement. I have read several posts about this or similar problems. This is the primary reason I switched routers and bought the D-Link DIR-655, for the print server feature...
I have a setup where a router learns a subnet from both EIGRP process and a BGP process (EBGP peer). In the network's normal state, the EBGP path is preffered path (Primary Path). When the route to the subnet is lost in EBGP, then the router will install the EIGRP learn route into the routing table and use that as its path to get to subnet now (Backup path). This works as expected.
The problem is when the EBGP learn route comes back, the Router still holds on the EIGRP learned route in its routing table. I would think that since the Admin Distance (AD) of EIGRP (90) is higher then the EBGP AD (20) that once the EBGP route is learned again, that it would re-install itself back into the routing table (replacing the EIGRP learned route). But this is not happening.
Im not sure what Im missing here since I thought AD was highest considered attribute the routing table consider when install a route learned from 2 routing process.
The setup Im running is an Cisco 7206VXR (NPE-G2) processor (revision A) running IOS c7200p-spservicesk9-mz.124-15.T12.bin.
I am having one router CISCO2911/K9 (Cisco 2911 w/3 GE,4 EHWIC,2 DSP,1 SM,256MB CF,512MB DRAM,IPB). But now my management asking me to upgrade this router as CISCO2911-SEC/K9.
We have a BGP / OSPF configuration as shown in the topology picture. When the connection towards Internet is taken down, we expect the traffic to be forwarded toward WAN 2 (preferred) or WAN 1. The problem is that the BGP learned routes disappears when the Internet connection is taken down. The IP routing table on R2 only shows internal networks and the networks between R2 and WAN 1 and 2. No routes to internet is shown. We run "show ip bgp neighbors <ip-to-wan-1-router> received-routes" it contain internet routes. And when we run "show ip bgp neighbors <ip-to-wan-1-router> routes" it contains no routes at all.
The problem I am having is that the VPN pool network is not being advertised via EIGRP, but the other networks are.
The other issue I am having is that even though I have created access-lists that allow the inside network (10.0.0.0) to ping the DMZ interface (172.16.101.1) on the ASA, the ASA is not allowing it. I have also created an ACL that allows the DMZ interface to ping inside, but this fails as well.
I am running an ASA with 8.4(3) and am trying to setup a dynamic VPN tunnel. We are having a business reason to establish a VPN tunnel to customers who do not have nailed down IP addresses. Now I found a number of documents that outline the steps involved. It seems the basic steps were to Establish a regular tunnelAdd dynamic crypto mapAssign the dynamic crypto map to the tunnel created under step 1. While this sounds pretty straight forward and simple, while prepping for doing just this I hot a road block while thinking it through. In order for my ASA to put anything into the tunnel it has to have a route to the remote network pointing at my VPN peer at the end of the tunnel. How do I do this in a dynamic tunnel? How do I add a dynamic route so the ASA knows which tunnel to stuff the traffic into? How do I stop the traffic from just being send to the Internet?
I'm trying to set up a Cisco ASA 5505. I'm mainly setting things up through ASDM but I also have console access. Right now while I'm setting it up I have the outside/Vlan2 port attached to my existing network and a laptop connected to the inside/Vlan1 port. More info about that:
interface Vlan1 nameif inside security-level 100
[Code]....
Before I added that last "0.0.0.0" entry, the ASA would not see anything on the internet. Now I can ping any external IP address from the router's console. However, the laptop I have connected to the 'inside' port still cannot reach any IP address outside the 10.10.153.0 network. Every time I try to add a similar route for the 'inside' interface, I get the following error: "You have another route configured for this network any which has same gateway 10.10.152.1 and same metric 1. You cannot add a duplicate route." I know I'm misunderstanding something here. In order to make devices connected to the 'inside' port connect to the internet, I need to set up a new route that will direct these devices to 10.10.152.1, right?
For ASR1000 to support 4M routes, RP2 must be used.
1) RP2 need to have 16GB memory in order to support 4M routes? 2) Need to use ESP20/40 together with RP2? 3) If RP2 + ESP10, supporting route table size down to 1M? 4) 4M routes is shared for both IPv4 an IPv6? 5) SIP card will affect route table size?
I'm using a Catalyst 4500 switch (C4507R+E) with Sup 7E. Cisco Datasheet of this switch says that it can learn maximum 256K IPV4 routes. Currently it just learns 10330 ipv4 routes. However when I show platform hardware ip route summary, it seems that the FIB is just free 100K routes as below output:
In my live VPN concentrator at work, my 5520 is showing a static route for each VPN client that is connected to my SSL vpn right now. This kind of confused me because wouldn't only one route to the address pools subnet be needed for my vpn users?
I bought the SG300-10 Switch a few days ago and updated it to firmware 1.3.0.59, but i think there's a bug in this firmware. If I go to "IP Configuration" IPv4 Routes" in L3 Mode nothing is displayed. In the log file i see that:
21474773112013-Mar-16 09:51:34Error%HTTP_HTTPS-E-DIAGNOSTICS: ERROR - in <RL_vtLeadTableGet> tag, can not find the table rlInetRoutingDistanceTable in the MIB. 21474775182013-Mar-14 22:39:22Error%HTTP_HTTPS-E-DIAGNOSTICS: ERROR - in <RL_vtLeadTableGet> tag, can not find the table rlInetRoutingDistanceTable in the MIB., aggregated (1)
We have a Cisco 7301 concentrator, well two of them in HSRP configuration. We have multiple VPN's setup on that router (crypto map based). Recently we noticed the following:
- There is one IP address that has hundreds of static routes for some reason
- VPN for this customer is working, but I'm trying to find out why this is happening.
Here is how it looks like: S 0.0.0.0 0xF5FFFF2C [1/0] via "ip-address".There are hundreds of entries for a single IP there.
I am working on a network that has four nodes/Currently I have RIP running in between R1 and R2, and between R3 and R2. These are shared and R1 can access R3 just fine.R3 is running BGP and communicating with R4.R3 can ping everything in R4's network with no difficulty.Currently R3 is not rebroadcasting the BGP routes into RIPv2 as needed.I have tried clearing my BGP session and am still not able to get the BGP routes from R4 to R1.
Routers A1,A2,B1,B2 are in AS 65100 Routers 1 and 2 are in AS 65101 Routes from the network2 to network3 should go through RouterA1-Router1 Routes from the network1 to network3 should go through RouterB2-Router2
As for now all routes within AS 65100 to AS 65101 goes through RouterB2/Router2
i been filterin LSA type 3 and the table route localy routes en ospf v2 ipv4 whit the commands distribute-list , area filter-list route-maps ACL and prefix-lis ¿but how can i do the same filterin in ipv6 whith OSPFv3?
We are planning to run BGP on our pair of 3560G switch, I would like to know how many bgp routes it can support? it currently running on advance IP service.
I need to use IP SLA to monitor remote routes on CAT6500
CAT6500 is running "sup-bootflash:s72033-jk9o3sv-mz.122-18.SXD7b.bin" on SUP720 Feature Navigator said it is ENT FW W/MPLS/IPV6/SSH/3DES After drill down into feature set I found that this version support for IP SLA such IP SLAs - ICMP Path Echo Operation
BUT, back to console I can not do such (config) ip sla command (not found cmd CAT6500(config)# ip sla 1) What I did wrong or others cmd imply this ip sla process?
