how does ibgp peer know that a received update from a ibgp peer is not to be forwarded to another ibgp peer? is there any role of TTL, is so please explain?
why do we need special type-4 lsa (route to asbr) for ASBR can't we reach ASBR router using type-3 LSA when it is not a ASBR. so when a router turns into ASBR by redistributing external networks why is it that we need another type-4 LSA
bgp connection is flapping and on checking the neighbor statstics we get following message - keepalive are termporarily in throtlle due to closed tcp window
we have dual PRE3 on cisco10008 series router and after a PRE switchover standby PRE stays in standby-cold state whereas with SSO configured it should reach hot-standby and the message that is displayed on primary console %ISSU-3-INCOMPATIBLE_PEER_U...
How is load-balancing achieved in MPLS L3 vpns and equal cost multiple links exist to reach egress PE along with per-destination load-balancing enabled on interfaces. I have tried to simulate the network below Ingress PE--->P1--->>P2--->Egress PEMult...
Hithanks for your reply that was very helpful and explanatory but can we anyhow block type-4 lsa in an area but allow type-3 & type-5 lsa and check the behaviour of ospf
Hithanks for your reply that was very helpful and explanatory but can we anyhow block type-4 lsa in an area but allow type-3 & type-5 lsa and check the behaviour of ospf
Hi thanks for your reply, i know the ibgp rule but would like to understand what field in the update packet makes a bgp speaking router know that it should not forward this update to another ibgp peer
just a doubt if can help with...i beleive MTU is negotiated while establishing a tcp connection and which ever is smaller from both the end interfaces is selected. so why did bgp have a problem ?
