Hi, On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 05:28:15PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > Thanks. I guess in my mind the numbers needed to add up more. Both routers > are taking a full table, which is more or less the same prefixes with > different path information. R2 claims it's sending about 412K to R1, yet > R1 only sends 100K to R2. I would think the number should add up > approximately close to the full table size.
No. If both R1 and R2 were to prefer "their" eBGP neighbour, both would
send a full 430K table to each other - and if R1 prefers everything from
R2, it would send 0 prefixes to R2.
So you'll see something between 430K and 860K if you sum that up.
(Now why R1 or R2 prefer a given prefix via eBGP before iBGP depends
on each individual prefix - path lengths, MED, eBGP-before-iBGP, you
know the BGP decision hierarchy)
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgp1NoHuRcOvK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
