On 06/25/2013 07:16 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-06-24 23:19 -0500), Andrew Brant wrote:neighbor 192.168.25.7 fall-over route-map RTM-BGP-FALLOVERFall-over and next-hop tracking are two distinct features. With next-hop tracking, you simply invalidate the next-hops there by invalidating the routes and choosing next-best option. With fall-over you tear down whole session, this is usually undesirably large hammer, consider your IGP flap is very short, if you tore down the iBGP it might take minutes to recover.
You can simulate the desirable option using EEM and route tracking. Put a track object for the iBGP peer /32s with appropriate down/up delays, and an EEM or TCL script to "clear ip bgp x.x.x.x" when those track objects trigger.
It's a shame you can't do this directly: neighbour x.x.x.x track 50 I can imagine other use-cases. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
