North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Routing Table inconsistencies
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is probably a bone-head question, but what are the implications of inconsistent-as's? I know that I have _tons_ of bgp inconsitent-as paths, but no mbgp inconsistent-as paths. I also have 2 bgp peers, but only 1 mbgp peer. I would think if you only have 1 mbgp peer you could _not_ have any inconsistent-as paths as there is only one source for the mbgp information, so only 1 path. Right? ********************************************** Tim Winders, MCSE, CNE, CCNA Associate Dean of Information Technology South Plains College Levelland, TX 79336 Phone: 806-894-9611 x 2369 FAX: 806-894-1549 Email: [email protected] ********************************************** On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, David Meyer wrote: > Well, this is likely going to follow the same pattern that you've > demonstrated, that is, NASA prefixes that are advertised directly > to AS10888 and to their providers. Situation is somewhat of an > special case (that is not to say that inconsistent AS isn't a > problem in general). Interestingly, I'm not seeing either of > these at the moment, e.g. > > orix.maoz.com#sh ip mbgp inconsistent-as > > orix.maoz.com# > > (doesn't seem to be a bug, as the 2 you mention aren't > inconsistent at the moment) > > Maybe we need to get rid of 10888. > > Dave > > > Reply-To: > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400 > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > >> > >> Hello All; > >> > >> We had a problem with a domain with two different AS paths in the BGP table, so I wrote a script to > >> look for such problems. > >> > >> There are two prefixes in the current MBGP tables here with such problems : > >> > >> Date of BGP Dump Mon Jun 18 15:39:46 EDT 2001 > >> > >> ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix = 198.9.201.0 : > >> > >> *> 198.9.201.0 160.81.38.225 75 0 1239 10888 i > >> * 204.147.129.89 0 145 24 i > >> > >> ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix = 198.9.202.0 : > >> > >> * 198.9.202.0 204.147.129.89 0 145 24 i > >> *> 160.81.38.225 75 0 1239 10888 i > >> > >> And a total of 488 prefixes in the BGP tables with such problems !!!!! > >> > >> The complete lists are contained in > >> > >> http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.inconsistency and > >> http://www.multicasttech.com/status/bgp.inconsistency > >> > >> I could update these regularly if there was any demand. > >> > >> I may be obtuse, but I cannot see how this could be a good thing. > >> > >> Regards > >> Marshall Eubanks > >> > >> > >> > >> T.M. Eubanks > >> Multicast Technologies, Inc > >> 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 > >> Fairfax, Virginia 22030 > >> Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 > >> e-mail : [email protected] > >> http://www.on-the-i.com > >> > >> Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ > >> Check the status of multicast in real time : > >> http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OSF1) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iEYEARECAAYFAjsumTQACgkQTPuHnIooYby9sQCfZmnpRildo8Irzqrx8ZvEvMBR YVIAoJsoufICV+YMv+hbEwYaNxK/u234 =3anB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|