Morning Michal,
sorry for late very late reply ... it is probably not useful to you
but im writing this to help anyone searching mailing list archives for an answer
As Stuart mentioned you can use filters in bgpd.conf to do this
check out /etc/examples/bgpd.conf
also check man bgpd.conf and i
On 2018-11-26, Michail Iordanidis wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> is there a way to advertise IP prefixes generated from a customer AS &
> prefixes to an EBGP neighbor in Openbgpd?
>
> Can I somehow create an outgoing prefix list our something like a
> route-map for outgoing filtering?
>
> Please help
>
Alex Mathiasen(a...@mira.dk) on 2013.02.28 14:51:25 +0100:
> Dear recipients,
>
> I have been using OpenBGP for a while with OpenBSD - And I am very
> satisfied with the performance and amazed by the ease of configuration.
>
> My BGPD is configured against a Danish ISP called TDC - And we were
Alex Mathiasen a écrit :
>Dear recipients,
>
>I have been using OpenBGP for a while with OpenBSD - And I am very
>satisfied
>with the performance and amazed by the ease of configuration.
>
>My BGPD is configured against a Danish ISP called TDC - And we were
>previously
>configured to receive a fu
On 2013-02-28, Alex Mathiasen wrote:
> Looking into the log files, it appeared BGPD received a certain route in the
> routing table, and then grumbled about the prefix
"grumbled about" is not very exact, actual log entries would be a lot
more helpful. It would be even better if you could capture
Alex Mathiasen(a...@mira.dk) on 2013.02.28 14:51:25 +0100:
> Dear recipients,
>
> I have been using OpenBGP for a while with OpenBSD - And I am very satisfied
> with the performance and amazed by the ease of configuration.
>
> My BGPD is configured against a Danish ISP called TDC - And we were pr
Alex Mathiasen [a...@mira.dk] wrote:
>
> It appeared the BGPD kept receiving the routing tables, and then start all
> over.
>
You don't mention which version of openbsd you are using.
There are some problems like this in older versions of bgpd which are
now fixed. You may want to try a new sna
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:34:02AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> >> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I am facing a strange behavior,
> >> >
> >> > I have the following scenario
> >> >
> >> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iB
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-02-04, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> >> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I am facing a strange behavior,
> >> >
> >> > I have the following scenario
> >> >
> >> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBG
On 2013-02-04, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I am facing a strange behavior,
>> >
>> > I have the following scenario
>> >
>> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
>>
>> iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
>>
Eduardo Meyer(dudu.me...@gmail.com) on 2013.02.04 13:51:25 -0200:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
>
> > make iBGP2 a route server.
> >
>
> Sounds promising, what are the key configurations in bgpd.conf to do so? So
> I can look further.
>
> Are we talking 'bout reflector/
Am 04.02.2013 16:32, schrieb Eduardo Meyer:
> Really? It's difficult for me in this environment, do I have another option?
add a route collector that peers with all ibgp neighbors...
On 4 Feb 2013, at 10:36, Peter Hessler wrote:
> make iBGP2 a route server.
I think this would be a route reflector since you're dealing with iBGP.
Michael
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> make iBGP2 a route server.
>
Sounds promising, what are the key configurations in bgpd.conf to do so? So
I can look further.
Are we talking 'bout reflector/collector?
>
> On 2013 Feb 04 (Mon) at 13:32:43 -0200 (-0200), Eduardo Meyer wrote
make iBGP2 a route server.
On 2013 Feb 04 (Mon) at 13:32:43 -0200 (-0200), Eduardo Meyer wrote:
:Really? It's difficult for me in this environment, do I have another option?
:
:
:On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Florian Obser wrote:
:
:>
:>
:> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
:> > Hell
Really? It's difficult for me in this environment, do I have another option?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Florian Obser wrote:
>
>
> On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am facing a strange behavior,
> >
> > I have the following scenario
> >
> > eBGP1<->iBGP1<->i
On 02/04/2013 03:59 PM, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am facing a strange behavior,
>
> I have the following scenario
>
> eBGP1<->iBGP1<->iBGP2<->iBGP3<->eBGP2
iBGP must be fully meshed, a session between iBGP1 and iBGP3 is
missing.
Am 2012-09-18 16:34, schrieb Stuart Henderson:
On 2012-09-18, Bernd wrote:
Hi list,
I've got two OpenBSD (5.1-STABLE, amd64) machines running OpenBGPd.
Both of them are connected to two upstream providers each,
furthermore
there are (older) Ciscos, also connecteed to the same (!) upstream
r
On 2012-09-18, Bernd wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I've got two OpenBSD (5.1-STABLE, amd64) machines running OpenBGPd.
>
> Both of them are connected to two upstream providers each, furthermore
> there are (older) Ciscos, also connecteed to the same (!) upstream
> routers.
>
> Recently, both OpenBSD mac
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 08:54:25PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson
> > wrote:
> >> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> >>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
> >>> asdot f
On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
>>> asdot format?
>>
>> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it alway
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
>> asdot format?
>
> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
> outputs as-dot.
>
> I think we should proba
On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using
> asdot format?
Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always
outputs as-dot.
I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple
of years ago and pretty muc
Am 28.02.2011 19:36, schrieb fredrik danerklint:
> Well, ospf6d is so broken that it can't be used in a production environment.
>
> Since IPv6 is so important for me as a Internet Service Provider I have to
> come up with something to solve my needs...
Well I use opsf6d in production (for a small
mendagen den 28 februari 2011 19.27.28 skrev fredrik danerklint:
> mendagen den 28 februari 2011 15.15.21 skrev Claudio Jeker:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:08:05PM +0100, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I need some help with an configuration of OpenBGP.
> > >
> > > I have four
mendagen den 28 februari 2011 16.22.10 skrev Henning Brauer:
> * fredrik danerklint [2011-02-28 15:11]:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I need some help with an configuration of OpenBGP.
> >
> > I have four routers that is connected with p-2-p links between each
> > other:
> >
> > R1 <-> R2 <-> R3 <-> R4
> >
mendagen den 28 februari 2011 15.15.21 skrev Claudio Jeker:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:08:05PM +0100, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I need some help with an configuration of OpenBGP.
> >
> > I have four routers that is connected with p-2-p links between each
> > other:
> >
> > R1
* fredrik danerklint [2011-02-28 15:11]:
> Hi!
>
> I need some help with an configuration of OpenBGP.
>
> I have four routers that is connected with p-2-p links between each other:
>
> R1 <-> R2 <-> R3 <-> R4
>
> I've only seen networks announced to the nearest router that it is connected
>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:08:05PM +0100, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I need some help with an configuration of OpenBGP.
>
> I have four routers that is connected with p-2-p links between each other:
>
> R1 <-> R2 <-> R3 <-> R4
>
> I've only seen networks announced to the nearest route
Hi,
> R1 <-> R2 <-> R3 <-> R4
>
> I've only seen networks announced to the nearest router that it is connected
> to.
>
> For example: R1 see R2 but R1 cannot see R3 etc..
Do you mean R2 is neighbor to R1 but not R3 or you mean R3 doesn't distribute
to R1 ?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:20:55PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I want to selectively announce what I get from my peers (whom I am
>> transit for) for a certain upstream peer. I decided to use community
>> to do so, like that:
>
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:20:55PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to selectively announce what I get from my peers (whom I am
> transit for) for a certain upstream peer. I decided to use community
> to do so, like that:
>
> # Add what I get from my transit peers to communyt $myas
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> match to $peer_2 prefix X.Y.Z.0/23 set localpref +50
>>
>> But it wont work as I need. Please remember X.Y.Z.0/23 is announced by me.
>
> localpref for outgoing? that is useless. localpref is, well, local,
> and not transmitted to the peer.
* Eduardo Meyer [2010-05-23 13:51]:
> Hello,
>
> I have 3 simple but yet annoying doubts. First, it's about localpref.
> Today I have a /23 prefix which I announce only to one peer and which
> I also go upstream to this very only peer. However the upstream policy
> I had to use "pf route-to" to a
Hi there,
Le 16 mai 2010 ` 14:26, Claudio Jeker a icrit :
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:15:21PM +0200, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
>> Hi Stuart,
>>
>> Le 15 mai 2010 ` 13:47, Stuart Henderson a icrit :
>>
>>> On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Hello,
I am running OpenBSD 4.7-curren
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 05:15:21PM +0200, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> Le 15 mai 2010 ` 13:47, Stuart Henderson a icrit :
>
> > On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
> >> negociate tcp md5 b
Hi Stuart,
Le 15 mai 2010 ` 13:47, Stuart Henderson a icrit :
> On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
>> negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake up, I
have
>> connection timeout...
On 2010-05-15, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am running OpenBSD 4.7-current, and it seems I have some problems to
> negociate tcp md5 bgp session... They doesn't seems at all to wake up, I have
> connection timeout... or what ever.
Please show ipsecctl -sa and netstat -rnfencap.
I have
On 12.2.2010 P3. 11:10, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2010-02-11, Ivo Chutkin wrote:
match to $my_upstream_1 source-as {some_as} set prepend-self 4
I would like to prepend my as to make as path longer for "some_as"
trough my_upstream_1 and make it to prefer path trough my_upstream_2.
It does not
Am 11.02.2010 11:31, schrieb Ivo Chutkin:
> The actual filter looks like this without the comment:
>
> match to $spnet_bg #(AS8717) sourse_as 9070 set prepend-seff 4
These are typos, right?
match to "neighborip" source-as "as to prepend" set { prepend-self 3 }
works in our setup
On 2010-02-11, Ivo Chutkin wrote:
>>> match to $my_upstream_1 source-as {some_as} set prepend-self 4
>>>
>>> I would like to prepend my as to make as path longer for "some_as"
>>> trough my_upstream_1 and make it to prefer path trough my_upstream_2.
>>> It does not produce error with bgpd-n but th
On 10.2.2010 P3. 21:32, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2010-02-10, Ivo Chutkin wrote:
Hello misc,
Would the following filter work?
match to $my_upstream_1 source-as {some_as} set prepend-self 4
I would like to prepend my as to make as path longer for "some_as"
trough my_upstream_1 and make it to
On 2010-02-10, Ivo Chutkin wrote:
> Hello misc,
>
> Would the following filter work?
>
> match to $my_upstream_1 source-as {some_as} set prepend-self 4
>
> I would like to prepend my as to make as path longer for "some_as"
> trough my_upstream_1 and make it to prefer path trough my_upstream_2.
>
Den 29/09/2009 kl. 18.24 skrev peter dunaskin:
Hello Soeren,
I'm trying to implement CARP on our edge BGP OpenBSD routers. CARP
itself seems to be working perfectly but I'm having problems
figuring
out how to propertly configure BGP.
I have couple of external IP's on my network, so limited
Hello Peter
Den 29/09/2009 kl. 14.33 skrev peter dunaskin:
Hello,
I'm trying to implement CARP on our edge BGP OpenBSD routers. CARP
itself seems to be working perfectly but I'm having problems figuring
out how to propertly configure BGP.
I have couple of external IP's on my network, so limit
On 2009-05-24, Justin Credible wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Justin Credible
> *>199.185.136.0/2364.x.x.x 200 1 3549 812 812 812 812 3602
> 22512 i
> * 199.185.136.0/23212.x.x.x 100 500 3356 6453 812 3602 22512 i
> # route -n show | grep 199.185.136
> 19
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Claudio Jeker
wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:54:37AM -0600, Justin Credible wrote:
>
>
>
>> I figured this one out. This particular problem was caused because i had set:
>>
>> nexthop qualify via bgp
>>
>
> Why did you set this? Just for fun or was there a r
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:54:37AM -0600, Justin Credible wrote:
> I figured this one out. This particular problem was caused because i had set:
>
> nexthop qualify via bgp
>
Why did you set this? Just for fun or was there a reason behind it.
> I don't know why that setting in particular set
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Justin Credible
wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Justin Credible
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I am running OpenBSD 4.4 with OpenBGPD and multiple peers.
>>
>> For some reason the device is selecting Level3 as the default route for
absolutely everything
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Justin Credible
wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I am running OpenBSD 4.4 with OpenBGPD and multiple peers.
>
> For some reason the device is selecting Level3 as the default route for
absolutely everything which is not statically set.
>
> On Level3 config i have set:
>
> s
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Claudio Jeker
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:27:42PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a /20 and I want a announce half of it to peer21 and the other
>> half to peer2 only. How am I expected to do so? Using filters?
>>
>> Can anyone please m
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:27:42PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a /20 and I want a announce half of it to peer21 and the other
> half to peer2 only. How am I expected to do so? Using filters?
>
> Can anyone please mention a working example?
>
network a.b.c.d/21
network a.b.c
It's really easy, you can send some of the 1's and 0s to peer 21, and
some 1's and 0's to peer2.
Assuming the halves are contiguous, you would probably announce 2x /21's.
You could also really try and be very specific and announce them as a
bunch of /32's, this would give you the granularity y
* Dan Carley [2009-02-20 14:47]:
> This behaviour was thankfully not replicated with 4.4 in the lab, so we'll
> be upgrading promptly. But we were having issues with our 4.4 peers keeping
> sessions open to each other. This was resolved with r1.13 of bgpd/timer.c.
> I'm curious though whether this
True, although in this scenario would soft reconfig not be an answer?
As each router has two copies of the full table, one via the eBGP peer
and another from the iBGP peer. If the eBGP peer dropped all the iBGP
learned routes would remain and be used. When the eBGP peer came back up
soft recon
On 2008-10-08, Simon Slaytor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's also important to tune the BGP dead timers as low as you can
if you do this, do it with care, it's a double-edged sword.
sure you pick up a dead session sooner, but, it greatly increases
the chance of killing a session when your or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyi : mercredi 8 octobre 2008 09:05
@ : BARDOU Pierre
Cc : Frans Haarman; misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
BARDOU Pierre wrote:
Hello,
I can load balance on the firewalls with pf , but the problem
Hi,
First off lets clear up to things:
OSPF is an igp protocol, you would use it to share routes between your
own routers not a transit providers.
iBGP is again an igp, this time BGP will automatically talk iBGP when
talking to routers within the same AS. Your BGP sessions will
automatically
On 2008-10-08, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-10-08, BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>
>> --=_NextPart_000_00C3_01C92936.6DEF4560
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>> boundary="=_NextPart_001_00C4_01C92936
On 2008-10-08, BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --=_NextPart_000_00C3_01C92936.6DEF4560
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> boundary="=_NextPart_001_00C4_01C92936.6DEF4560"
>
>
> --=_NextPart_001_00C4_01C92936.6DEF4560
> Co
octobre 2008 10:56
À : BARDOU Pierre
Cc : misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
ospf and bgp are designed to select the best possbile route and
add that to the kernel routing table I think ;)
I still think you could run 2 CARPs on both BGP routers and
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 09:14:02AM +0200, BARDOU Pierre wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Failover already works with BGP on my test conf, the problem is that BGP
> only selects ONE route to a destination, so there is no load balancing.
>
There is loadbalancing insofar that if you have two independent up
nks
>
> --
> Cordialement,
> Pierre BARDOU
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Mariusz Makowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyi : mardi 7 octobre 2008 21:38
> @ : Frans Haarman
> Cc : BARDOU Pierre; misc@openbsd.org
> Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing betwe
octobre 2008 21:38
À : Frans Haarman
Cc : BARDOU Pierre; misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
Frans Haarman wrote:
> 2008/10/7 BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am trying to set up a configurai
D]
Envoyé : mercredi 8 octobre 2008 09:05
À : BARDOU Pierre
Cc : Frans Haarman; misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
BARDOU Pierre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I can load balance on the firewalls with pf , but the problem of that
> Solution is that ther
...
--
Cordialement,
Pierre BARDOU
De : Frans Haarman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyi : mardi 7 octobre 2008 18:54
@ : BARDOU Pierre
Cc : misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
2008/10/7 BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTEC
etup that on my test config.
--
Cordialement,
Pierre BARDOU
-Message d'origine-
De : Mariusz Makowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyi : mardi 7 octobre 2008 21:38
@ : Frans Haarman
Cc : BARDOU Pierre; misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
Fr
BARDOU
De : Frans Haarman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 7 octobre 2008 18:54
À : BARDOU Pierre
Cc : misc@openbsd.org
Objet : Re: OpenBGP load balancing between 2 ISP (multihoming)
2008/10/7 BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frans Haarman wrote:
2008/10/7 BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello,
I am trying to set up a configuraion like this :
+--- -+ +-+
| ISP1 | | ISP2 | Cisco
| ROUTER | | ROUTER |
| AS3215 | | AS12
2008/10/7 BARDOU Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to set up a configuraion like this :
>
> +--- -+ +-+
> | ISP1 | | ISP2 | Cisco
> | ROUTER | | ROUTER |
> | AS3215 | | AS12670 |
>
2008/6/13 Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:26PM -0700, Lu Vo wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I set up 2 routers running openbgpd. The first one is working well. The
> > 2nd one is not.
> >
> > I am seeing these errors in the syslog
> >
> > Jun 13 14:18:13 router2
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:47:26PM -0700, Lu Vo wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I set up 2 routers running openbgpd. The first one is working well. The
> 2nd one is not.
>
> I am seeing these errors in the syslog
>
> Jun 13 14:18:13 router2 bgpd[9453]: neighbor xxx.191.188.137: write error:
> Operati
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:41:14AM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2008 8:47 PM, Dustin Lundquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To balance your inbound you can prepend your AS number to your
> > advertisements to depreference them. Some larger ISPs do this on a per
> > prefix basis, but s
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:09:29PM -0300, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
> around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
> restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can all routes updated
> again.
>
> Is
Eduardo Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For example, I have a certain traffic outgoing to AS 4230, it was
> going via AS17379, and with localpref I could make it go via 18881.
>
> However, I need to balance it in the adequated ratio, say, make 40% of
> outgoing traffic to 4230 go via 1881 whil
On Feb 18, 2008 8:47 PM, Dustin Lundquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To balance your inbound you can prepend your AS number to your
> advertisements to depreference them. Some larger ISPs do this on a per
> prefix basis, but since a sizable portion of ISPs are running Cisco gear
> with a 256K pre
On Feb 18, 2008 5:39 PM, NetOne - Doichin Dokov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eduardo Meyer NAPISA:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
> > around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
> > restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes
Eduardo Meyer P=P0P?P8QP0:
Hello,
I have setup OpenBGP doing full routing with 3 other peers, so I get
around 240k routes from each peer. But if by some reason I have to
restar bgpd, it takes up to 5 minutes so I can all routes updated
again.
Is there a way to save and later restore the RIB/FI
On Jan 16, 2008 1:15 PM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/01/16 12:33, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> > I have lowered holdtime for testing purposes only. With default value
> > the behavior is the same. I have just forced local-address to another
> > one, with "local-address 201.70.2
On 2008/01/16 12:33, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> I have lowered holdtime for testing purposes only. With default value
> the behavior is the same. I have just forced local-address to another
> one, with "local-address 201.70.200.2" but still the same.
>
> Here is the tcpdum output
that doesn't look l
On Jan 16, 2008 11:43 AM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> > I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
> > However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
> > reason myself, so I
>
> > holdtime 4
>
>
* Eduardo Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-16 14:24]:
> The problem I get is:
>
> neighbor 200.184.196.18 (Intelig): state change Connect -> OpenSent,
> reason: Connection opened
tcp connection has been established and we sent our OPEN message to the
neighbor.
> neighbor 200.184.196.18 (Intel
On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
> However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
> reason myself, so I
> holdtime 4
can your peers keep up with that? it's rather low.
> Local host: 201.87.
On 2008/01/16 13:43, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2008/01/16 11:17, Eduardo Meyer wrote:
> > I am setting up OpenBGP for the first time in replacement to Cisco.
> > However, I am having some troubles which I could not realize the
> > reason myself, so I
>
> > holdtime 4
>
> can your peers keep up
* Erich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 17:27]:
> on our router with 2 uplinks we had the following scenario.
>
> one uplink interface didnt came up at boote due an misconfiguration in
> /etc/hostname.fxp0,
> no problem so far, the other interface did work ok, the bgp session started
> there.
> a
On 2007/09/17 16:22, Erich wrote:
> im using the bgpd version which was shipped with openbsd 4.0, a little bit
> older, but did a good job so far.
I definitely recommend updating, 4.1-stable is probably the best
choice for you (at least, until 4.2 is out).
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:50:33AM +0100, Jon Morby wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2007, at 14:38, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> > * Ond??ej Sur?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-21 14:58]:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
> >>> Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you
On 21 Apr 2007, at 14:38, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Ond??ej Sur?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-21 14:58]:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
>>> Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're
>>> sorted
>>> but if you're still having problems
>>>
>>> Wha
* Ond??ej Sur?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-21 14:58]:
> Hi,
>
> Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
> > Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
> > but if you're still having problems
> >
> > What does your filters section look like ?
>
> It's very sim
Hi,
Jon Morby pm9e v So 21. 04. 2007 v 12:13 +0100:
> Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
> but if you're still having problems
>
> What does your filters section look like ?
It's very simple now - none. But filters just modify prefixes accepted
and not couplin
Not sure if you're still trying to fix this, or if you're sorted
but if you're still having problems
What does your filters section look like ?
On 16 Apr 2007, at 16:28, OndEej SurC= wrote:
>
> I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and
> there
> seems to be problem
Henning Brauer pm9e v Po 16. 04. 2007 v 19:06 +0200:
> * Ond??ej Sur?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-16 17:40]:
> > I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and there
> > seems to be problem with IPv6. I have tried google and irc, but without
> > success.
> >
> > I am receivin
* Ond??ej Sur?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-16 17:40]:
> I have configured openbgpd on openbsd 4.0 (upgraded from 3.8) and there
> seems to be problem with IPv6. I have tried google and irc, but without
> success.
>
> I am receiving IPv6 prefixes just fine (791 from upstream transit, 140
> from
2007/3/27, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 2007/03/27 22:21, Thomas beta wrote:
> Now, if the link between the openbgp box and cisco3 fails, i still
> will be announcing the /24 of cisco3 (i receive the prefix also from
> cisco2). I cannot put a prefix filter on the incoming from the
> t
On 2007/03/27 22:21, Thomas beta wrote:
> Now, if the link between the openbgp box and cisco3 fails, i still
> will be announcing the /24 of cisco3 (i receive the prefix also from
> cisco2). I cannot put a prefix filter on the incoming from the
> transits, otherwise i will loose contact to the netw
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:21:35PM +0200, Thomas beta wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am testing some things with OpenBGPD and did run into following problem:
>
> Test setup:
> I have 3 cisco routers and 1 openbgp box.
>
> The scenario;
> - Cisco1 and Cisco2 are transit providers, Cisco3 is a cus
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-31 15:02]:
> Hi,
>
> I had setup a private test network with the following information to test
> openbgp:
>
>
> OBSD-01
> ---
>
> AS: 65213
> IP: 10.0.111.77
>
>
> OBSD-02
> ---
>
> AS: 65123
> IP: 172.16.111.77
>
>
> My /etc/bgpd.c
* ClaudeBrassel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-26 14:03]:
> Some add-on :
> If I start the session with the carp device I have following in the
> /var/log/daemon :
>
> Oct 26 13:48:12 bgp1 bgpd[31321]: nexthop 212.x.x.253 now valid: via
> 212.x.x.254
yes, as I said, this is because the ifindex is n
ok, I am pretty certain this is fixed in 4.0
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Some add-on :
If I start the session with the carp device I have following in the
/var/log/daemon :
Oct 26 13:48:12 bgp1 bgpd[31321]: nexthop 212.x.x.253 now valid: via
212.x.x.254
And this one with the em0 interface :
Oct 26 13:53:21 bgp1 bgpd[31321]: nexthop 212.x.x.253 now valid: directly
con
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
