intra-confederation labs -
Ibgp router (R1 ) - propagate updates packets to intra-confederation neighbor (64512) and 64512 - member as sending notification errors to ibgp router R1 - with Malformed AS_Path
R1 neighborship going down after receiving notification
i dont what exact root cause of this issuse
have just set up a WLC 4402 as a Guest WLAN controller on the DMZ of our network. I have successfully managed to get our internal controllers to connect to it, with the exception of 1. it says the control path is up but the data path is down. the other 14 controllers worked fine, and in testing the last one was OK but it is now not working properly. the 2 controllers can ping each other but just won't create the data tunnel. there is a firewall in the middle but that has been set up to allow traffic between the 2 groups of controllers to be unrestricted.
the internal controllers are 4404's and all controllers are running the same version of code. 5.1.151.0.
If I have five iBGP routers in AS 64512 and one of the iBGP router has an eBGP peer to a different AS, which iBGP router (r1, r2, r4, r5, or r8) should I chose to be my route reflector and why? Also, what happens if the route reflector router fails? Do I designate a backup route reflector? I'm new to BGP.
View 4 Replies View RelatedAttached is BGP confederation configuration and Topology. They are taken from "Routing TCP/IP Volume 2" book.AS 65000 is designed as a backbone AS connected to non-backbone AS 65535, 65534 and 65533. All are member AS's in AS 1200.I have couple of questions as i think some parts of Sunshine's and Talisman's configurations are incorrect.
1. The next-hop-self keyword is mentioned only for Panorama router, why the keyword wasn't mentioned for Nakiska and Talisman routers? .. As we know, the next hop is preserved throughout the confederation, therefore, next hop self should be configured in all member AS's inside the confederation. The same thing with Talisman, why the next hop keyword wasn't mentioned for Lakeridge and Sunshine?
2. Why the remote-as keyword wasn't mentioned for Panorama in Sunshine's configuration while the keyword was mentioned correctly for every neighbor routers in Talisman's configuration?
3. I don't understand the below statements that are stated in the book, as it conflicts with the rule "MEDs are preserved throughout the confederation"
"AS 65000 can safely send MEDs to AS 65535. A route that includes 65000 in its AS_PATH is not accepted by Sunshine or Talisman, so MEDs sent from those routers to AS 65535 are not seen by other member AS's".
We are a service provider and we have presence across different data centres located across the country. Our core boxes are the mixture of Cisco VXR’s and 6513 switches which have MP-iBGP peering with the route reflectors. If a new client comes on board, a new VRF will be created to carry the client’s traffic and as a standard practice the VRF will be added to all the core devices across the network even if they don’t have a presence in a data centre.Now, I am designing a network for a client who has presence only at two fixed locations as shown in the attached diagram. We will be acting as a transit network between the client and another service provider. So, I have planned to use MP-eBGP between us and the other provider and default/static routes to the client’s network I don’t think will be an issue. Since the client has presence only at two locations, my design thoughts are to create a VRF and a Vlan and form an iBGP session only between the two routers and bypassing Route Reflectors. Created the VRF at BNE_R1 and formed MP-eBGP relation with the other provider and I can see some routes appearing via the peering which is normal and expected.
My problem is (not problem I don’t understand how this is happening), I created the VRF on Mel_R1 router and did not add any extra lines of configurations to BGP under that VRF instance and when I was checking some thing I accidentally found the same routes which appears on Bne_R1 is appearing in the VRF’s routing table via MP-iBGP session through route reflector. I can’t understand how this is happening, since I haven’t added any thing on the route reflector and some how its leaking traffic.
Is this normal??Is it’s a must / standard / Good Practise to add the newly created VRF across all the device which peers with the route reflector ??Is there a way to override the Route Reflector just for this client (VRF) and form a direct MP-iBGP peering directly with the devices involved.A network can be designed in much number of ways.
Topology :
PE router-T (ASN 1111) ----eBGP---- CE router-T (ASN 65500) ----iBGP---- CE router-V (ASN 65500 ) ----eBGP---- PE router-V (ASN 2222)
When We have configured in this mannger everything is working fine. Only thing is that I can not receive all the NEtwork updates coming from PE- Router - V in CE router T. It's due to synchroization rule (I have not tunrned off synch in CE Router T.) Now for Load sharing purpose I have applied one Route map on iBGP peering from CE Router V to CE router T in OUT direction mentioning any routes coming via ASN 65555 than set Local Preference = 150 and will prefer path via MPLS SP - V. Rest via MPLS SP - T.
But as soon as I have applied the Route-Map. It's not reflected.When I have applied clear ip bgp * on CE rotuer - V than I can see two routes in CE router - T with LP 150 and default. Everything is working OK.
When trying to check the auto failover by Shuting LAN int of CE router-V --- Failover is also working via CE router-T.When reenabling the LAN int ----- After that iBGP perring is flapping continuolsly. Finally We have remove the route-map ad it was stable.
find the route map :
CE Router - V
router bgp 65500
!
address-family ipv4
[code].....
I have also checked the MTU issue between these two Peer (LAN int. of both the CE routers) by pinging each other with size 1500 with df-bit set.
Here is my Lab Setup: 2691 is BGP nei to R4 router and they are not directly connected. 2691 and R4 are in same AS 6500. 2691 Config---router ospf 1 network 3.3.3.3 0.0.0.0 area 0 . Its advertising its loop back IP to OSPF domain.
router bgp 6500
no synchronization
bgp log-neighbor-changes
neighbor 6.6.6.6 remote-as 6500
neighbor 6.6.6.6 update-source Loopback3
[code]...
R4 Router
router ospf 11
log-adjacency-changes
network 6.6.6.6 0.0.0.0 area 0
[ code].....
We can see that 2691 and R4 are BGP neis and 2691 has 200.1.x.x routes in its route table. My question is why from 2691 router i am unable to ping any route learned by BGP from R4?
2691Router# ping 50.1.1.0 Type escape sequence to abort.Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 50.1.1.0, timeout is 2 seconds:.....Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)2691Router#ping 200.1.2.0 [ code]...
I have an issue with LMS not terminating SSH sessions on the Cisco ACE?
Cisco LMS 3.2
Cisco ACE A2(3.3)
What is the maximum allowed number of BGP sessions on Cisco platforms sup720 BXL and 7200 G2? Particulaty what are these numbers if BGP sessions are under MPLS vrf (i.e. maximum number of BGP session per vrf?).
View 2 Replies View Relatedthe customer has a problem with LMS 3.2. This software doesn't terminate ssh sessions created by LMS on ACE. All ssh sessions still exist on ACE, so no new ssh session can be created until the administrator manually clear these session on ACE.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI've got a problem with an ASR1004 running "asr1000rp2-adventerprisek9.03.02.00.S.151-1.S.bin".
When I'm performing extended ping tests using a tclsh script i'm geting this error message:
ASR_X1A2#ping 172.27.1.250
% Authorization failed.
When i'm pinging 12 diffrent destinations this happens to about 3 of them.
Checking the logs I found this:
Apr 24 19:42:56.071: %SSH-4-SSH2_UNEXPECTED_MSG: Unexpected message type has arrived. Terminating the connection
In my entire backbone this is happening only in this equipment, I've checked the connection between my ASR and the TACACS and it's OK, no packet loss. CPU and MEM are OK too.
Cisco Works (LMS 3,2) is not closing SSH sessions to a Cisco ACE module, I see the following thread and tried the workaround to no avail.
[URL]
I have also seen the following caveat (CSCtz42393) but this seems to be LMS 4.x, would this be 4.x and below or do I need to find the equivalent LMS 3.2
Router is running with IOS 12.4(24T) and we are having problems like file download stalls, some emails not being send or received. CBAC is enabled on this router with default values. MTU is also the default value. This problem has started all of a sudden. seeing lot of errors in the logs as below:
Oct 27 16:47:52: %FW-6-DROP_PKT: Dropping smtp session X.X.X.X:4443 Y.Y.Y.Y:25 due to Stray Segment with ip ident 25800 tcpflags 0x5014 seq.no 288975356 ack 3363647737*Oct 27 16:48:31: %FW-6-DROP_PKT: Dropping http session X.X.X.X:2020 Y.Y.Y.Y:80 due to Stray Segment with ip ident 1472 tcpflags 0x5011 seq.no 2686554796 ack 4275837539
Earlier we had same problem with LMS 3.2
(RME-Admin-Config Management- Fetch Interval) from 180s 420s.
Now after LMS upgrade ( 4.2.2 ) the SSH sessions are stucked on ACE. We had not experienced it with 4.2.1
[code]....
Someone told me the commands, but I can't remember them. Have a router (2801) at the end of a highly utilized T1 link/router. How do I protect it so my SSH and/or Telnet sessions will get serviced if the router is real busy.
View 9 Replies View Relatedwhile traversing through Cicso ASA Firewall 5520,VPN sessions are disconnecting.In Accelissts for VPN-Outbound traffic from LAN to Client VPN ,we have allowed all Ports.Is there any inspection Rules are cause for this issue. In ASA Firewall,presently the inspection rules are [code]
View 1 Replies View RelatedWe are using ACS 5.1 in our network. We have created users and grouped them as per the requirements. We want to restrict the user sessions in the network. A user should authenticate and able to access a network resource. But when he is active with that session, we need to block him from another successful authentication. We want to avoid multiple users using same user credentials for logging into the devices. whether this can be achieved by making configuration changes in ACS.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have the default license for a ASA 5505 and this last Friday I received the attached log for SSH sessions through this firewall; we want to be clear about this issue. This limitation has to be with the 10 Inside Host or the Total VPN Peers limitations in this license? This firewall exists only to agree with a PCI requirement between our router and a communication with a Payment Card Industry Brand, all of this in the same site.
ASA5505 <164>Sep 09 2011 10:42:08: %ASA-4-450001: Deny traffic for protocol 6 src DMZ:X.X.X.X/2479 dst DMZ1:X.X.X.X/22, licensed host limit of 10 exceeded.
I hope that the communications through 22 TCP port, are not countable for license propose.
Licensed features for this platform:
Maximum Physical Interfaces : 8
VLANs : 3, DMZ Restricted
Inside Hosts : 10
Failover : Disabled
VPN-DES : Enabled
[code]....
I am curious of the max supported SIP sessionf of the SRP500 series.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI've looked at the forum posts and the document post, and I understand the explanations. My question is, under system administration>max user session global settings, would setting a timeout (say 1 hour) purge these sessions?
Under access policies, I am not enforcing max concurrent sessions per user, due to some of our devices using a generic log in. But if I understand the explanation, and my understanding might be wrong, then setting an expiry timeout should purge the accounting sessions, right?
I have DSL line that gives 7mb down and 768k up. I have 2 users running win7 RDP session and after a few hours the session is unusable its so slow and then eventually it hangs . don't know where to start.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am having a recurring problem with tcp sessions timing out / getting reset. I'm using the DIR-655 with PPPoE on a Qwest DSL line. Everything appears to be working fine (including my ipv6 tunnel) except for this issue where my long running ssh & database connections are being reset after a period of time.Currently have 2.03NA loaded, tried using 2.07NA but couldn't get ipv6 working correctly with the newer version.
View 7 Replies View RelatedIn our organization ,recently we are facing a issue with VPN connections are disconnecting abruptly in reandom time periods ( 5Min,15Min,1Hr also).We have verified in our SysLog .[code] The same was worked well in Cisco Pix 515E Firewall ,After changed to Cisco ASA 5520,it is giving the issue.- All Ports are allowed for outbound traffic with a Source Network 172.16.40.0/24 to their Client VPN.- This issue is giving for other Subnet Users i.e 172.16.33.0/24 to their Cleint VPN sessions & I allowed all Ports for them for Outbound traffic. Any feature in ASA is casuing for terminating the sessions which was not in Cisco PIX 515E.- ASA version is 8.0.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a issue with 1142n.If I start from 15 sessions per AP then it becomes a very costly affair. Because there are almost 20.000 student.20,000 students * 60% concurrent use divided by 15 = 800 APs.what is a realistic number of sessions on this AP? What is max concurrent connections on this AP?
View 9 Replies View RelatedWe are using ACS 5.1 and from time to time we are getting a warning saying that the active sessions are over the limit (250000). It is just a warning, so my assumption is that its not a big deal, but how do we keep from getting the event, or prevent the event?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have upgraded my ASA 5520 til version 9.1 with ASDM version 7.1. After the upgrade ASDM shows a lot of IPSEC VPN-sessions in the GUI that i cannot see from the ASA. Right now the GUI says that I have 28 IPSEC-sessions while the output from "show vpn-sessiondb l2l" shows the expected 4 tunnels and the output from "show vpn-sessiopndb remote" shows 0 as expected. (I do not use IPSEC from remote users).
View 3 Replies View Relatedhow many sessions a BGP Route Reflector can support? is it 10, 100 or 1000 BGP sessions? What degradation of performance may arise in the case of a BGP RR sessions overload? Consider that the RR I'm deal with has both the control plane and teh forwarding plane. Which command I may use for get the output about BGP sessions resurces used level?
The following are the data about the RR:
Cisco 7600
WS-SUP720-3BXL
Version 12.2(33)SRD5
cisco CISCO7609 (R7000) processor (revision 1.2) with 983008K/65536K
We have a new 2911 that needs to be configured, unfortunately it's at a remote site. I had installed the following config: [code]
Now, I do get a dhcp ip on the G0/0 interface and I can ping it from my remote network and the local router as well as the local lan. The hands and eye guy is able to telnet from the local lan but I am unable to telnet from either my remote lan or the local router.The only error I receive is "connection refused by remote host". All lines are clear so I have no conflicts with multiple telnet sessions.
Here is the current logical routing path of the network I've inherited:ISP_ASA_1800 --- P2P link_ LAN, However, the equipment is setup up in this inefficient physical topology: Internet_ASA_LAN switch --- 1800 --- P2P link_LAN, The 1800 is the default gateway for all LAN hosts. This means that all traffic not destined for the LAN goes first to the 1800 which has routes for the Internet and for the P2P. If traffic is destined for the P2P, this is no problem. If traffic is destined for the internet, then in my opinion this is an inefficient routing path because the traffic ends up doing this:LAN host > switch > 1800 > back to the same switch > ASA > Internet, So I am thinking of setting up the physical topology to match the logical topology like this:Internet, ASA_1800 ---- P2P link_LAN switch_LAN hosts This means I will connect the 1800 and ASA directly to one another. Am I on the right track? Is this the best way?
View 4 Replies View RelatedI finally can upgrade my 1841 routes from 12.4 to the latest 15.1 IOS. Any info about upgrade path , do I need to modify config file and provide me with upgrade instruction link or something like that ?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a problem with the return path of NAT'd traffic on a Cisco 877W router. Here's the network setup:
gatekeeper1 (192.168.0.1) is a Cisco 857gatekeeper2 (192.168.0.253) is a Cisco 857gatekeeper3 (192.168.0.251) is a Cisco 877W
The default route is 192.168.0.1 on all devices, however there are some static route defined so that traffic to certain IP addresses bounce off to 192.168.0.253 and use that Internet connection instead. This new connection is designed so that traffic aimed for a certain internal IP address (192.168.0.190) comes via this third internet connection in order to take the load off of the main line. NAT is all configured and appears to be working when .251 is the default route but as soon as I set it back to .1, the traffic appears to come in but doesn't go out again.
Any good link that explains the NX-OS upgrade path? I am trying to go from 5.0(2a) to 5.2x.
View 1 Replies View RelatedWhere can I find information regarding the details and upgrade path for the 2821 Intergrated services router. We are looking to upgrade from 12.4 (c2800nmc-spservicesk9-mz.12.4xxx.bin) to 15.1. Is their a spefici location to look for in the download or IOS area for upgrade paths?
View 3 Replies View Related