03-01-2012 05:48 AM - edited 03-04-2019 03:29 PM
Hi All,
Attached is packet capture of the BGP on 192.168.10.1 router.
The the config of the 192.168.10.1 (Packet number 23)
router bgp 400
bgp router-id 192.168.10.1
bgp log-neighbor-changes
bgp default local-preference 150
network 10.0.0.0/15
network 10.2.0.0/15
network 10.250.0.0/15
network 10.252.0.0/15
redistribute connected
redistribute static
neighbor 192.168.10.5 remote-as 65000
neighbor 192.168.10.5 weight 1
neighbor 192.168.10.5 soft-reconfiguration inbound
neighbor 192.168.10.5 route-server-client
The BGP peers are not forming between the two Routers. The router 192.168.10.5 is ISP and we do not have control over it.
Is there a way to remove optional parameters from the packet 23 or any configuration changes are required from the above config to remove the optional parameters.
Or is there any other issue which I am overlooking.
Your assistance will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
Ravindra K
03-01-2012 06:05 AM
Look at the notification message.
Is there really a need for last line 'route-server-client' ?
Thanks.
03-01-2012 06:10 AM
Hi Rais,
Not really. But does that add parameters to the BGP optional parameters.
Regards,
Ravindra K
03-01-2012 06:29 AM
Hi,
is the BGP session failing? Or you just don't exchange any prefixes with the neighbor?
As Rais is suggesting, I'd try to remove the 'route-server-client' command from your config, as it can be modifying the AS_PATH of your prefixes advertised considerably, see
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/ios_xe/iproute_bgp/configuration/guide/irg_route_server_xe.pdf
HTH,
Milan
03-01-2012 07:08 AM
Yes Milan,
Its failing. I am giving it a go in the lab. Will keep you all updated.
Regards,
Ravindra K
03-07-2012 11:49 PM
Hi,
in you packet capture, are there any details visible in the BGP Notification message?
Have you tried to remove the
route-server-client
command from your config?
BR,
Milan
03-01-2012 06:10 AM
Hi,
you received a notification message which should have appeared in the logs and which is in your capture file can you tell us what it is fussing about because when there is a mismatch in supported capibilities it doesn't bring the neighborship down.
Regards.
Alain
03-01-2012 06:28 AM
Hi Cadet,
My requirement is that I do not want the optional parameters to be part of my config. Please let us know what configs should I eradicate from the config.
Thanks.
Ravindra
03-01-2012 07:28 AM
Hi,
neighbor
Regards.
Alain
03-07-2012 11:17 AM
Hi Cadet,
Do you mean the relatationship does not come down when optional paramters are not same?
We saw one more error of the AS bit. The opposite brand supported only 2 byte ASN so it used to send warning.
Please explain the behavior and the use of optional parameters.
Regards,
Ravindra K
03-07-2012 12:00 PM
Hi,
I mean that it is a negotiation and if a bgp speaker sees acapability as not supported by the peer with a notification message then it will try to bring up the peering again this time not sending this capability but it should not bring the neighborship down.
But in your case apparently the peer has no optional parameter so maybe this is why it won't bring the neighbourship up and that's why I proposed the command I found in my previous post.
Regards.
Alain
03-08-2012 12:19 AM
Hi Cadet,
It makes sense.
the behavior which we have seen was that the peers were failing so we captured the logs (pcap above). But we lost the access after removing the route-server-client command as we were connected on the WAN IP address.
We found that opposite brand has advertised a default static route. So which means that the command route-server-client did work.
We used prefix list to stop the default route being advertised to our router.
and it worked fine. Considered this as closed and you guys saved my day.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Ravindra
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide