Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About nygenxny123
01-30-2018
Stats
Member since
01-09-2008
387
Posts
0
Helpful
1
Solution
01-23-2018
02:39 PM
We currently have 2 ISP providers giving us a full routing table for our data center internet access
However, we just upgraded one internet link
Now we have
300Mb-ISP-A
1Gig-ISP-B
After the upgrade I noticed that ISP-A was sending us a default route along with the full BGP routing table
ISB-B was not sending us a default route along w/ the BGP table.
Router B was learning the default route via router A via BGP/OSPF relationship betweek our two routers
ISP-A also appears to be sending us more routes
My question is...Would it be beneficial to have ISB-B also send us a default route?
... View more
Labels:
03-28-2017
10:55 AM
Thanks Julio
Your solution worked too.
I believe my mistake was using a distribute-list and associating a prefix-list or route map with it directly with it...instead of using an ACL
i.e
once I configured and a distribute-list pointing to an ACL...routes were filtered as I expected.
I believe distribute list followed by a route map statement only works in eigrp
however distribute list will only work with and ACL in BGP
... View more
03-27-2017
03:01 PM
Hello John,
I changed the configuration to
distance bgp 171 200 200
and that seemed to do the trick.
Although the routes were in my bgp topology table...they weren't in my routing table
as far as filtering
I tried a prefix list filtering only the route i wanted...implicit deny at the end
ip prefix-list deny-route seq 10 permit 10.1.0.0/16 le 32
address-family ipv4 neighbor 172.16.0.13 activate neighbor 172.16.0.13 prefix-list deny-route in
After this I only saw the 10.1.0.0/16 network....which is what I wanted.
However, when I tried to use to distribute list with a route-map trying a deny first..than later a permit..
all routes were allowed and we were back at square one
address-family ipv4 neighbor 172.16.0.13 activate
neighbor 172.16.0.13 distribute-list BGP-Suppress in
route-map BGP-Suppress deny 10 (I also changed this to a permit) match ip address prefix-list deny-route
ip prefix-list deny-route seq 10 permit 10.1.0.0/16 le 32
Why would a prefix-list statement work..filtering all but 1 network/route
in my routing table
but not the distribute list?
... View more
03-27-2017
06:46 AM
Hi Julio
Router 2..link 2..Is our point to point...and was considered our primary link
to the data center
Router 1 link 1 is our MPLS and was the link for other sites
Our core switch at the remote site is still using router 1 link 1 MPLS to other sites
However in the event of failure....router 2 link 2 would be the back up
However when I enable bgp....
router 2 instead of going to router 1 link 1 now has BGP learned routes...
Although everything is ok now...in the event of router 1 failure
my concern is router 2 will be using its BGP learned routes instead of the p to p routes
sh ip route
Before enable bgp
D EX 10.6.0.0/16 [170/1080320] via 10.13.2.3, 2d16h, GigabitEthernet0/0/1
After BGP
B 10.6.0.0/16 [91/0] via 172.16.0.13, 00:00:15
I have also tried this command with no luck
distance bgp 91 200 200
... View more
03-24-2017
02:58 PM
We currently have 2 routers with links to 2 different providers
1 link is MPLS using BGP........with EIGRP being our internal protocol (provider #1)
2nd link is a point to point to our data center. (provider #2)
We are adding a 3rd link for VOICE...this will be from provider #1..also using BGP also using their same AS
This 3rd link will be going on router #2
Once our peer relationship was up....router number 2's routing table preferred the New BGP route (AD 20)
Before we brought this up traffic was to be going over the point to point link for default routes and traffic to the data center.
My question is
How do I prevent these routes from being placed in the routing table over this new BGP link....which we don't want for now.
Neither internal or default routes
I tried using prefix list...and route maps...but that didnt seem to do the trick with the following configs
router bgp 65011 bgp log-neighbor-changes neighbor 172.16.0.13 remote-as 3568
address-family ipv4
neighbor 172.16.0.13 activate
neighbor 172.16.0.13 route-map BGP-DENYIN in
neighbor 172.16.0.13 prefix-list DENY-DEFAULTROUTES in
route-map BGP-DENYIN deny 10 match ip address prefix-list INTERNAL-Net
ip prefix-list INTERNAL-Net seq 5 permit 10.0.0.0/8 le 32 ! ip prefix-list DENY-DEFAULTROUTES seq 5 deny 0.0.0.0/0
... View more
Labels:
03-07-2017
02:20 PM
We currently have a few DMVPN sites with no separate Vrf for default routes or internet traffic.
What we do have is EIGRP running between the hub and spoke and only allowing internal networks to be advertised via EIGRP
and a static default route going out the local interface. My question is the following..........
Is there any benefit for me to changing this to a front door vrf at the spoke site?
From the looks of the routing table..internet traffic is being sent locally
router eigrp 100 passive-interface default no passive-interface Tunnel11 no passive-interface Tunnel12 network 10.77.85.0 0.0.0.255 network 10.77.86.0 0.0.0.255 distribute-list route-map EIGRP-OUTBOUND out Tunnel11 distribute-list route-map EIGRP-OUTBOUND out Tunnel12
route-map EIGRP-OUTBOUND permit 10 match ip address prefix-list Local
ip prefix-list Local-Nets seq 5 permit 10.77.85.0/24 ip prefix-list Local-Nets seq 10 permit 10.77.86.0/24
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 80.80.x.x
Gateway of last resort is 80.80.xx.xxx to network 0.0.0.0
80.0.0.0/29 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 80.80.x.x is directly connected, GigabitEthernet0/0
D EX 10.3.32.0/21 [170/2707712] via 172.31.11.129, 5d03h, Tunnel11 D EX 10.4.48.0/20 [170/2195712] via 172.31.11.33, 6d15h, Tunnel12 D EX 10.3.48.0/20 [170/2707712] via 172.31.11.129, 5d03h, Tunnel11 D EX 10.4.0.0/20 [170/2195712] via 172.31.11.33, 6d15h, Tunnel12 D EX 10.4.0.0/16 [170/2195712] via 172.31.11.33, 6d15h, Tunnel12 D EX 10.3.0.0/20 [170/2707712] via 172.31.11.129, 5d03h, Tunnel11 D EX 10.3.0.0/16 [170/2707712] via 172.31.11.29, 5d03h, Tunnel11
... View more
Labels:
02-28-2017
01:07 PM
thx..I was under the impression QoS kicked in at or close to 100% utilization only
... View more
02-28-2017
07:12 AM
We have a 100 meg link to our provider.
I was under the impression that QoS is really only applied when the link is saturated
We have 3 "bucket" going to the provider...
1 for DSCP EF which gets the "premium bucket"
1 for AF31 which gets "enhanced bucket"
The rest being default
My question being what is the advantage of making one priority and the other bandwidth?
The shape average applied to all traffic?
class-map match-any MPLS-EN match ip dscp af31 class-map match-any MPLS-PRE match ip dscp ef
policy-map QOS-MPLS-100M class MPLS-PRE priority 25000 class MPLS-EN bandwidth 30000 class class-default fair-queue random-detect policy-map QOS-MPLS-OUT class class-default shape average 100000000 service-policy QOS-MPLS-100M
int g0/1 service-policy output QOS-MPLS-OUTBOUND
... View more
Labels:
07-01-2016
08:57 AM
Yesterday we had an incident where one of our ISP's had a routing issue yet was still advertising
routes to us that were unreachable.
We have two ASR routers..one dedicated to ISP1 the other dedicated to ISP2
The ASR's are connected to each other via Gig ports..running BGP to each other also
ASR2 -going to ISP2 seems to be the preferred outbound internet route. MY question
is.
Would I simply add an increased weight on the the ASR2 /ISP2 so that outbound internet
routing than chooses ASR1 /ISP1?
ASR1(ISP1) router bgp 51111 bgp log-neighbor-changes network 50.xx.xx.0 mask 255.255.255.0 neighbor 10.43.x.2 remote-as 51111--------------ASR2 neighbor 10.43.x.2 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 10.43.x.2 next-hop-self neighbor 205.x.x.7 remote-as 3111 neighbor 205.x.x.xx7 route-map Telco_in in neighbor 205.x.x.xx7 route-map Telco_out out
ASR2 (ISP2) router bgp 51111 bgp log-neighbor-changes network 50.x.x.0 mask 255.255.255.0 neighbor 10.43.x.1 remote-as 51111--------------ASR1 neighbor 10.43.x.1 update-source Loopback0 neighbor 10.43.x.1 next-hop-self neighbor 64.x.xx.2 remote-as 41113 neighbor 64.x.xx.2 route-map ISP_IN in neighbor 64.x.xx.2 route-map ISP_OUT out
example--would like network 1.18.126.0 to have ASR1 as best route..ASR2 is advertised as the rout
ASR-1#sh ip route 1.18.126.0 Routing entry for 1.18.126.0/24 Known via "bgp 51111", distance 200, metric 0 Tag 4113, type internal Last update from 10.3.x.2 1w3d ago Routing Descriptor Blocks: * 10.3.x.2, from 10.3.x.2, 1w3d ago-----------(ASR2 loopback address) Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1 AS Hops 3 Route tag 4113 MPLS label: none
ASR-1#sh ip bgp 1.18.126.0 BGP routing table entry for 1.18.126.0/24, version 510239969 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table default) Not advertised to any peer 4113 4116 2119 10.3.x.2 (metric 2) from 10.3.x.2 (10.3.x.2) <--------ASR-2 Loopback Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best 219 6119 4116 21199 65.x.x.17 from 65.x.x.17 (205.x.x.150) Origin IGP, metric 8000038, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 136979
... View more
Labels:
04-28-2016
12:43 PM
We have a WAN router with 1 uplink to an ISP (l3 vlan)....that ISP than hands off to our data centers (vlans)..one on the
east coast and one on the west coast...it look like our default traffic is going to the east coast..when it should be going to the west coast
based on CEF load balancing..
is there any way to switch this?..all costs are equal and I dont want to touch that...will shutting down the east coast
data center vlan interface bounce it and keep it permanently preferred to the west ?
sh ip route
O*E1 0.0.0.0/0 [110/10065] via 10.31.205.223, 6d13h, GigabitEthernet0/0.2155-----east coast preferred? [110/10065] via 10.31.205.213 07:19:57, GigabitEthernet0/0.255
#sh ip cef
Prefix Next Hop Interface 0.0.0.0/0 10.31.205.213 GigabitEthernet0/0.2155 10.31.205.223 GigabitEthernet0/0.2155
interface GigabitEthernet0/0.2155 description-ISP link bandwidth 100000 encapsulation dot1Q 2155 ip address 10.31.205.6 255.255.255.0 ip ospf cost 10000 ip ospf mtu-ignore
... View more
Labels:
03-22-2016
11:27 AM
Hi Jon
Host 10.1.1.1 is located in San Diego and must go across the internet to pull snmp
from g0/1 which has the IP address of 192.168.2.2-no ACL on either of these interfaces
However, in order to get to the 192 address/interface...traffic must transverse g0/0
which has an ACL in of deny snmp ...that ip address is 172.10.1.1
for the sake of argument theses IP's are all public.
both 192.168.2.2. and 172.20.1.1 are located on the same router
my question is...since traffic must transverse g0/0 which has an ACL in applied to it.
Will this prevent snmp request traffic from reaching g0/1
... View more
03-22-2016
10:45 AM
We currently have a configuration is which and ACL in is configured under the connection to our ISP
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/1 description ISP ip address xxx.xxx.xxxx ip access-group 100 in
under ACL 100 we have rules applying to snmp.some permits..and implicit denies
We have another gig interface configured w/ a Public Address for our NAT'd IP.s
g0/0/2
We are going to poll snmp on that interfaces configured IP. (public)
My question is...Will the ACL on G0/0/1 impact all SNMP traffic going through g0/0/1?
Or becuase it is destined for an interface with no ACL...will SNMP be free to go through g0/0/1 to g0/0/2?
... View more
Labels:
01-12-2016
11:52 AM
this would also work if the hosts are downstream on different switches but have uplink via 5k's etc... trunks?
... View more
01-12-2016
10:10 AM
What are the cleanest ways to build a non routable vlan on a 7k
i.e-only hosts within the same vlan can talk to each other (sort of an isolated network)
1-create a vlan with no SV--using broadcast..-(hosts would simply fill in their own IP information..albeit the same network)
2-Vlan with SVI..but not participating in routing?...(not sure what the drawback would be..our 7k is advertising the entire Class B though)
3-Create a separate vRF ..and have the new vlan assigned to this?..
... View more
Labels:
01-23-2018
We currently have 2 ISP providers giving us a full routing table for our
data center internet access...
03-28-2017
Thanks Julio Your solution worked too. I believe my mistake was using a
distribute-list and associat...
03-27-2017
Hello John, I changed the configuration to distance bgp 171 200 200 and
that seemed to do the trick....
03-27-2017
Hi Julio Router 2..link 2..Is our point to point...and was considered
our primary link to the data c...
Created by
nygenxny123
in Routing
03-24-2017
03-24-2017
We currently have 2 routers with links to 2 different providers 1 link
is MPLS using BGP........with...
03-07-2017
We currently have a few DMVPN sites with no separate Vrf for default
routes or internet traffic. Wha...
02-28-2017
We have a 100 meg link to our provider. I was under the impression that
QoS is really only applied w...
07-01-2016
Yesterday we had an incident where one of our ISP's had a routing issue
yet was still advertising ro...
04-28-2016
We have a WAN router with 1 uplink to an ISP (l3 vlan)....that ISP than
hands off to our data center...
03-22-2016
Hi Jon Host 10.1.1.1 is located in San Diego and must go across the
internet to pull snmp from g0/1 ...
03-22-2016
We currently have a configuration is which and ACL in is configured
under the connection to our ISP ...
01-12-2016
this would also work if the hosts are downstream on different switches
but have uplink via 5k's etc....
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 01-09-2008 06:54 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 01-30-2018 02:40 PM |
| Total Messages Posted | 387 |
Helpful Votes Given To
| User | Helpful Count |
|---|---|
| 15 | |
| 5 | |
| 20 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 |
.jpg "Hall of Fame Guru"){kind=icon}
.jpg "VIP Expert"){kind=icon}
