North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: route-map match clause for existance of a BGP session?
Several people have requested that I post my findings.. The idea here was to utilize multiple transit providers as backup paths for VPN connectivity between remote locations by redistributing static host routes into the IGP based on the availability of a particular peer. Initially, the route announcements for each location were not being advertised to us by our peers at each other location, which made looking for the specific announcement difficult, hence my question about looking specifically for the presence of the session. Correcting for this made it simple to implement a standard route-map that looks for the announcement itself, rather than the session. route-map VPNpath match ip address prefix-list Site1 match ip route-source 10 set metric 50 router ospf 1 redistribute static subnets route-map VPNpath When latency or packet loss or what-have-you are affecting a provider, but the announcement is still present, it is simple to go to the router with the best connectivity and tweak the metric value to prefer that path. I know that there are multiple other ways of achieving the same results, but I kinda like this one. :) Thanks again, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Bulger, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 6:13 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: route-map match clause for existance of a BGP session? Thanks all for the replies.. I managed to find a solution that works for my purpose. -----Original Message----- From: Bulger, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:25 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: route-map match clause for existance of a BGP session? Sorry for the non-operational content, but looking for some Cisco advice. Does anyone happen to know a trick for a route map match clause that will only match if a BGP session is established with a given peer? The idea being to only redistribute a particular static route based on the availability of the peer through which the next hop of the static would be configured... Thanks in advance, Tim