That second part has bit me in the rear before..... As a matter of course now I always make a static route to null 0 for every prefix I announce via BGP. Once I verify that an IGP or static route is covering that prefix, I remove the null route.... or not if you have several more specific routes.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:34 PM Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14/Dec/18 19:16, Joseph Mays wrote: > > > > > The distribute lists shown also just contained appropriate permit and > deny entries for 216.24.0.0 /18 > > Firstly, please don't use distribute lists. This is very archaic and > prone to mistakes. Suggest you migrate to prefix lists right away! > > > > > > > That changed the broadcast cogent was receiving, but not in the expected > way. They only route they saw us broadcasting after that was the > 216.24.60.0/23 route. Not the first one in the list, not the last one, > not the biggest one or the smallest one, but just one route from the middle > of the list. I don't get this behavior at all. Cogent cleared and bounced > bgp to us, and still received only that one route in the broadcast from us. > > After you've fixed your filtering with prefix lists, you need to ensure > that any "network..." statement is backed up by the presence of the very > same route in your IGP (which includes static routing). > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
