bgp between 2 routers

[carl_townshend]

Hi all

I have an issue, I have 2 routers, router A has 192.168.1.1/30 and router B has 192.168.1.2/30 , on each router I have included in the bgp network command network 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.252

however one of the routers wont add the route to the bgp table its saying rib failure (higher admin distance),

can you not do this in BGP, I can see that both routers are adversiting the same network. however on my other router it is OK,  Am I doing the right thing here and should it work ?

cheers

Carl

[Dan-Ciprian Cicioiu]

The "next-hop-self" command does not work on the Route-reflectors.

There are 2 solutions for this setup :

    - on the RR advertise both networks AB and BC

    - you can change the next hop on a route reflector using a route-map with set ip next-hop

Dan

[carl_townshend]

hi

I already added both networks on the route reflector, and it still shows as the next hop as being router A from router C,

i will try the route map

what do people normally do in this situation? I gather thats a feature of iBGP, so it doesnt have to route traffic through all one intermediate router, is that correct ?

I gather it would work fine if on a normal BMA ethernet network ? but not so good for P2P ?

also where would I add the route-map ?

[Dan-Ciprian Cicioiu]

Carl ,

The fact that you see on C the prefix from A with the A's next-hop is a normal behaviour.

As I told you in the previous post, you cannot change a iBGP route's next-hop on a route reflector by using next-hop self.

The only option is to use on the RR a route-map with set ip next-hop , you will get a warning that tells you that you are setting as a next-hop, the current IP of the router, and you apply this route-map on OUT direction to the route reflector client wanted.

Normaly you want , when you use RR , that the route has the next-hop of the originating router, in order to avoid loops.

Regards

Dan

[carl_townshend]

Hi there, so with ibgp do most people leave the next hop as the original router? Is this just how ibgp is supposed to be?