From: Robert Simmons
> Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:50
> To: Joe Astorino
> Cc: CCIE OSL
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] eBGP Loopback Peering
>
> The more ways you have to do something the better!
>
> Thanks for the quick (as always) response Joe.
>
> -Rob
>
> On
Very interesting way. I saw that option and went "hm?" but never pursued
it. Now ill keep it mind.
-nick
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Robert Simmons
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 16:26:50
To: Joe Astorino
Cc: CCIE OSL
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCI
The more ways you have to do something the better!
Thanks for the quick (as always) response Joe.
-Rob
On May 13, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Joe Astorino wrote:
> Any alternative way that doesn't break the rules is a good one to
> know! There is really no reason I can give you as to why we never
> used
Any alternative way that doesn't break the rules is a good one to
know! There is really no reason I can give you as to why we never
used that particular command other than that the lab author did not
find it all that interesting or overly important. The other thing you
could do is just not advert
Ipexperts,
In various labs, I've noticed that you guys present a scenario where you have
two eBGP nodes peering via a loopback that is being advertised via an IGP.
Obviously, this is going to cause the neighbor to "flap" since the eBGP AD 20
metric will supersede any of the default IGP metrics.
