On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:23:45AM +0800, Patrick Coleman wrote:
> Is there any reason you need to restrict capabilities like this on
> iBGP? Have you tried removing the the announce IPv6 unicast lines (so
> the announce all inherits from the parent clause) to see what happens?
Hi,
announce (IPv4|IPv6) (none|unicast|vpn)
For the given address family, control which subsequent address
families (at the moment, only none, which disables the
announcement of that address family, unicast, and vpn, which
allows the distribution of BGP MPLS VPNs, are supported) are
announced during the capabilities negotiation. Only routes for
that address family and subsequent address family will be
announced and processed.
Since I only want/need/have unicast address family, there is apparently
no need to change it.
After trying with this statement removed, it doesn't change anything :(
> The announce IPv6 unicast statement will affect the capabilities you
> send to the peer, reading the manpage, so that seems suspicious. The
> other thing I would check would be the internal routing - I assume you
> have appropriate routes between the peers?
Sure I do. Internal routing between loopback interfaces is done through
OSPF.
> Here's some of my IPv6 iBGP config. Note when filtering I also permit
> all from the iBGP group (last line). These could probably be tightened
> up a bit, but it might be a good place to start.
I tried with disabled filters, it didn't help either.
I'll no matter what still continue to find where this issue comes from.
Cheers,
Laurent
