Redistribution in MP-BGP

Hello,
I have a question regarding the redistribution process in MPLS network on the SAME PE router.
I have PE-CE RIPv2, and in the MPLS is MP-BGPv4. Between MPLS Core and LAN Core is OSPF.
I redistribute RIP to BGP on PE, so I have CE routes in the BGP of my PE router.
If I also redistribute BGP to OSPF on that very same router, will those BGP routes that are redistributed previously from RIP - be again redistributed in the OSPF from BGP?
Thanks,
h.

Hello,
Topology is: CE(1760) - PE(7609) - LAN(6509).
On CE there's RIPv2 with PE in vrf User. On PE there's a redistribution of RIPv2 to BGP.
PE(7609) and LAN (6509) are talking with OSPF in vrf User, so same vrf as PE-CE communication.
If I put redistribute bgp on PE(7609) in OSPF process for vrf User, will those RIPv2 learned routes from CE that are now in BGP be redistributed into OSPF in vrf User and sent to LAN(6509)?
I know that I can redistribute RIP straight to OSPF in vrf User on PE(7609), but I'm wondering will this also do the job.
thanks,
h.

Similar Messages

  • Delay redistribution Based on BGP Peer Status change

    Is there a mechanism that will allow me to delay the redistribution of routese from BGP>OSPF and OSPF>BGP until the BGP Peer has been established for a set period of time, say 15 minutes?  this would also need to account for a "flapping" peer and reset the timer

    I don't know why you're using multiple events here.  I was thinking:
    event manager environment q "
    event manager applet bgp-up
    event system pattern "BGP.*neighbor 10.0.0.114 Up"
    action 001 cli command "enable"
    action 002 cli command "config t"
    action 003 cli command "event manager applet bgp-up-timer"
    action 004 cli command "event timer countdown time 900"
    action 005 cli command "action 1.0 cli command enable"
    action 006 cli command "action 2.0 cli command $q config t$q"
    action 007 cli command "action 3.0 cli command $q router bgp 1$q"
    action 008 cli command "action 4.0 cli command $q redistribute ospf 1$q"
    action 009 cli command "action 5.0 cli command end"
    action 010 cli command "end"
    event manager applet bgp-down
    event syslog pattern "BGP.*neighbor 10.0.0.114 Down"
    action 1.0 cli command "enable"
    action 2.0 cli command "config t"
    action 3.0 cli command "no event manager applet bgp-up-timer"
    action 4.0 cli command "router bgp 1"
    action 5.0 cli command "no redistribute ospf 1"
    action 6.0 cli command "end"

  • OSFP redistribution into MBGP

    Hi,
    I've noticed lately that OSPF redistribution into MBGP(multicast  address-family) is not working.
    I'm using following topology with R1,R2 and R3 running one OSPF area 0 as IGP  with  125.1.X.R/24, and loopbacks 120.1.R.R/24
    X = neighbor routers(R1,R2=12, R2,R3=23)
    R = router number
    Example: R1: 125.1.12.1, R2:125.1.12.2/125.1.23.2, R3:125.1.23.3
    R1---R2---R3
    R1's OSPF routing table is as follows
    R1(config-router)#do show ip route ospf
         125.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3  subnets
    O       125.1.23.0 [110/20] via 125.1.12.2, 00:44:34,  FastEthernet0/1
         120.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 3 subnets, 2  masks
    O       120.1.3.3/32 [110/21] via 125.1.12.2, 00:44:34,  FastEthernet0/1
    O       120.1.2.2/32 [110/11] via 125.1.12.2, 00:39:37,  FastEthernet0/1
    I'm running BGP as 123 on all routers with R2 as RouteReflector and I'm also  activating multicast ipv4 address family
    R1(config-router)#do show bgp ipv4 multicast summary
    BGP router identifier  120.1.1.1, local AS number 123
    Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd MsgSent    TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
    120.1.2.2       4   123      57       57        1    0    0 00:36:56        0
    R2(config-router-af)#do show bgp ipv4 multicast summary
    BGP router  identifier 120.1.2.2, local AS number 123
    Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd  MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
    120.1.1.1       4   123       58      58        1    0    0 00:37:24        0
    120.1.3.3       4   123       53      53        1    0    0 00:37:59        0
    R3(config-router-af)#do show bgp ipv4 multicast summary
    BGP router  identifier 120.1.3.3, local AS number 123
    Neighbor        V    AS MsgRcvd  MsgSent   TblVer  InQ OutQ Up/Down  State/PfxRcd
    120.1.2.2       4   123       17      17        1    0    0 00:01:38        0
    At this moment, everything should be ready for redistribution
    R1:
    router bgp 123
    address-family ipv4 multicast
    redistribute ospf 1 match internal
    ! However, nothing is injected into BGP
    R1(config-router)#do show bgp ipv4 multicast       
    R1(config-router)#
    I enable "ip multicast-routing" on all routers in the  network, I'm also enabling PIM SM on all interfaces. The result is the same, no  prefixes were injected into MBGP
    Is there anybody who had this  problem before?

    I remember running into this while preparing for the CCIE.
    Try to put a route-map under multicast address family that sets the next-hop. Something simple like
    route-map SET_NH permit 10
    set ip next-hop x.x.x.x
    router bgp 123
    address-family ipv4 multicast
    redistribute ospf 1 match internal route-map SET_NH
    I never found a good reason for why it behaves like this but try it out to see if it works.
    Daniel Dib
    CCIE #37149

  • Backdoor routes

    We are starting a conversion of a rather large network from atm/frame to mpls. We will be managing the ce routers and talk bgp to the pe routers. Our current network is eigrp. We will have quite a few backdoor links in the network. Some will be backup only and not carry normal traffic, others such as the backdoor links between our data centers will be the primary path between the sites.
    My question is what is the best way to handle the backdoor links. We are looking at:
    1)running bgp on the backdoor links also and ibgp between the routers for the backdoor and the ce router.
    2)running eigrp on the backdoor but under a seperate eigrp as number and redistributing into the primary eigrp as.
    Both have their pros and cons. I was wondering which way other organization have gone and why.

    Hello,
    my 2 cents on the subject.
    I haven´t been involved with a customer in the situation you are. So those are some thoughts on the subject not backed up by experience.
    First, you need mutual redistribution BGP<->EIGRP on all CE routers.
    Second, as EIGRP will always prefer internal routes over external ones, you need another protocol on the backdoor links, which should be really backdoor.
    This said I would first select the links, which really shall be backup to the MPLS network. All other (prefered) links should be running EIGRP with main AS to reduce complexity.
    So lets first look at the "MPLS is backup" scenario. You will have the same networks on the CE learned through EIGRP and eBGP. The latter having AD=20 is prefered, which is undesired in this case. Setting eBGP to AD=150 could fix this. Additionally you need to tag the EIGRP networks learned from BGP with a site specific tag, which would allow to exclude them from redistribution back into BGP once they are announced through EIGRP to another CE.
    Generally a tag should indicate that this network was already passed through the MPLS VPN and thus MUST not be redistributed again.
    Now lets have a look at the "MPLS is primary" scenario. As you already stated you need another routing protocol/EIGRP AS in this case. On the CE this would still work, because external EIGRP with AD=170 is worse than (modified) AD=150 of BGP.
    What remains is again to set proper filters to avoid routing loops most likely again with tags and route-maps for scalability.
    With all this mutual redistribution it is clear, that any mistake in configuration or design of the filters will result in a routing loop.
    The other option would be BGP everywhere. Be aware however, that this will most likely not remove the redistribution and filter complexity.
    What I do not quite understand is, how the physical design looks like, i.e. where you have BGP routers and where EIGRP (main AS). In case you don´t want to black hole yourself, you need to redistribute back into EIGRP in any case, or run an iBGP full mesh on most of your internal routers.
    So in the end you have a lot of complexity in both solutions. Both of them can be implemented. From an operation point of view I would say, that my tendency would be towards EIGRP instead of BGP. But just because your staff might know the latter good enough to operate the whole thing without too much pain.
    Looking from a distance:
    1) Have you pushed the SP hard enough (=$$ ?) to allow EIGRP on the PE-CE link? This would simplify the whole situation.
    2) Have you thought of pushing the SP into OSPF on PE-CE and convert everything to OSPF internally? This would also simplify things. OSPF is better prepared to handle routing loops in MPLS VPNs and also sham links allow for having backdoor links, when required.
    Hope this helps! PLease rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • EIGRP

    Dear,
    How to connect the two EIGRP autonomous systems on single router.
    1, mutual redistribution?
    2, BGP
    any idea? or any configuration example?
    very thanks..
    ikizoo

    You can run EIGRP redistribution whether the routers are in the same building or not. Just run one of the two processes over the link between the buildings by configuring both processes on one of the two routers. You always have to have the two processes running on a single router to redistribute between them, but you don't need BGP to connect two routers in two different EIGRP AS'.
    The real question is--why not just reconfigure all the routers in the same AS number? Just because they are in different AS numbers today? If it's just the two routers, then just reconfigure one. If there's more to it than this, provide us with a little more information...
    Russ.W

  • MPLS IP-VPN compatibility

    Hi, we've lots of members running on 2 Cisco 2611 with HA configured (HSRP, ISDN backup, etc). There is 2 scenarios here as follow:
    i. 2 units of 2611 routers with each 2611 have a dedicated LL, one connected to HQ, the other connected to DR.
    ii. 2 units of 2611 routers with only one have a dedicated LL, the other provide ISDN DDR when the LL on the other failed.
    iii. 1 unit of 2611 routers with trunking to a 2950 switch, have a dedicated LL and ISDN DDR.
    For the first scenario, when the members having 2 dedicated LL, normally it is from different telco providers. Now there's one single telco offering us the chance to upgrade to MPLS IP-VPN for an interesting rate. What I'm wondering is, can it work that way?
    I have my 6509s with Sup720 at both HQ and DR, I have a good vendor all the while, if part of the members start to accept the MPLS-VPN, is there any integration problem? The HA configured will still work?
    The thing that worried me most is the core layer part, since the member get the router through a router distribution from the core router in EIGRP, and the ISDN DDR will redistribute the static when the ISDN is active. How MPLS fit into my network?

    Hello,
    In principle everything can work. The dessign in question has one leased line (or ISDN) to the HQ and another path through a MPLS VPN. The issue you will have to deal with is to carefully design your dynamic routing. In case you have EIGRP, then an internal route will always be prefered over an external route. It is most likely to get external routes through the MPLS VPN - depending on implementation details.
    Thus you might have the problem of proper primary/backup path selection and also with routing loops. The underlying reason for both is the redistribution in MP-BGP at the MPLS PE router.
    You need to get more details on the implementation in the SP network to avoid any pitfalls. EIGRP supports backdoors in an MPLS VPN environment, but the question is, whether your telco does as well.
    So it might work, but careful routing design is a must and involves you and the telco. HA is still possible, ISDN backup is possible as well. Depending on your specific implementation details you might need some route tagging and redistribution filters implemented by yourself or the telco to avoid the aforementioned problems.
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • External route with Down Bit set by CE router

    I have a question regarding the Down Bit. All the documentation I see concentrates on the redistribution of the MP-BGP into OSPF but I want to know more about the OSPF redistribution into MP-BGP. I think the rule is different for Type3 and Type5 LSAs.
    Lets say the CE redistributes a RIP route into OSPF, creating an LSA Type 5 route sent to the PE router - with the Down Bit set.
    Will this PE router redistribute this route into MP-BGP?
    I know that LSA Type 3 summary routes will not be redistributed into MP-BGP if the Down Bit is set but I am wondering about external OSPF routes with the Down Bit set????
    I am assuming that redistribution of RIP into OSPF at the CE does infact set this Down Bit before passing on to the PE router?

    How can step 2 in the sequence description say that PE2-AS1 receives an OSPF route with the Down Bit already set? This comes from the CE.
    I find this all very confusing when I check out these sequences - I thought only the PE router assigns Down Bit to LSA Type 3 routes?
    All the other references I see show how PE1-AS1 would normally set the Down Bit as it is redistributed back into OSPF?
    Thanks for your help - I feel I am getting closer. It is just this second step that is throwing me!
    Cheers
    Walter

  • BGP to OSPF redistribution with VRFs

    I am having a problem with redistribution of routes between BGP and OSPF when using VRFs mapping to VLANs between the PE and CE.
    In this lab I've put together I have R4 and R5 communicating with eachother via BGP with MPLS. If I redistribute the BGP into OSPF and delivering the connection to the CE without VLANs it works fine. If I want to essentially keep the same primary network going into the other side of the BGP but send the VRF over a VLAN to the next router the redistribution doesn't happen.
    In this example I have
    192.168.100.0/24 (R6) --ospf-- (R4) --BGP-- (R5) --ospf-- (R7) 192.168.200.0/24
    Between R4 and R5 is the core network running ospf (R1 - R3).
    Can anyone point me in the right direction why this isn't working? I am obviously missing something here.
    Thanks,
    Mike

    Hi Mike,
    You need to add capability vrf-lite under ospf process of R6 and R7 because they are configured with VRF-lite. This command will disable the check usually done on the PE to avoid routing loops.
    HTH
    Laurent.

  • Question about OSPF to BGP redistribution

    I have some static routes on a router where OSPF and BGP are also running. I have redistributed the static routes into OSPF (showing in OSPF database). I also want to have the static routes into the BGP routing table. Understand this can be done by using a prefix list permiting all the static routes, however I was thinking a simpler way just redistributing whatever is in the OSPF routing tabel into BGP (permit 0.0.0.0/0 le 32).
    My question is if OSPF really redistributes those routes. Those routes are shown as "static" in "sh ip route" even though they are also in OSPF database. I have heard that OSPF only redistributes the routes showing as "OSPF routes", not what's in its database.
    Thanks for any help.
    Gary

    Hi Gary,
    The thing to understand here is that the use of redistribution does not change anything in the routing table of the router on which you are configuring it.
    As you have observed, static routes do not become OSPF routes when you redistribute them into OSPF. This can be generalised to the following: when you redistribute protoclol1 into protocol2, the router will scan the routing table for routes installed by protocol1 and will then do one of the following, depending on the protocol it is being redistributed into:
    - if it is a Link state protocol like OSPF, it will originate LSAs appropriate to the route being redistributed. These LSAs will be subsequently flooded to other routers which will install them as routes in their routing table. The only change on the redistributing router is the installation of additional LSAs; the routing table does not change
    - if it is a distance vector protocol like IGRP, the router will take the protocol1 routes and advertise them via IGRP update packets every time an update packet is sent. Once again, there is no change on the routing table of the redistributing router.
    Note the other important point: when redistributing is carried out, the only routes that are redistributed are those that are in the routing table and installed there by the source protocol, which could be quite different to the contents of link-state databases.
    Hope that helps.
    Pls remember to rate posts.
    Paresh.

  • Bgp-Eigrp-Bgp redistribution question

    Hi Experts,
    Just wish to ask if there is an option to retain the as-path information in eigrp when i redistribute from bgp to eigrp then to bgp?
    I recall coming across something similar to this before but I can't seem to remember it.
    Thanks in advance.

    Hello friend.
    No, you can't retain the AS-PATH when redistributing prefixes from BGP to EIGRP.
    What you CAN do though, is to add the AS-PATH you want when redistributing it BACK to BGP.
    You can do something like this:
    1 - Add a TAG when redistributing the BGP prefixes into EIGRP
    route-map SET_TAG permit 10
     set tag 100
    router eigrp 1
    redistribute bgp 100 metric 1 1 1 1 1 route-map SET_TAG
    2 - transform the TAG into an AS_PATH, when redistributing it BACK to BGP.
    route-map set-as-path-from-tag
    set as-path tag
    router bgp 100
    redistribute eigrp 1 route-map set-as-path-from-tag
    Got it ?
    I hope this helps you !
    cheers

  • BGP redistribution to EIGRP

    Hi all,
    I'm trying to redistribute BGP to EIGRP and vice versa. I am succussfully redistributing EIGRP to BGP, but can't get EIGRP routes into BGP.
    Here's my config. Any guidance or assistance would be very much appreciated. 
    router eigrp 100 network 10.18.72.0 0.0.0.255 redistribute static route-map DEFAULT_ROUTE redistribute bgp 65535 passive-interface default no passive-interface FastEthernet0/0!router bgp 65535 bgp router-id 172.18.2.1 bgp log-neighbor-changes redistribute eigrp 100 route-map EIGRP_REDISTRIBUTE neighbor 172.18.2.2 remote-as 65535 neighbor 172.18.2.2 password ciscobgp no auto-summaryip access-list extended EIGRP_ROUTES_TO_BGP permit ip any any!!ip prefix-list DEFAULT seq 5 permit 0.0.0.0/0!route-map EIGRP_REDISTRIBUTE permit 20 match ip address EIGRP_ROUTES_TO_BGP!route-map DEFAULT_ROUTE permit 10 match ip address prefix-list DEFAULT
    Thanks in advance.
    Neil

    Add "bgp redistribute-internal" to your bgp process. By default, iBGP doesn't redistribute into an IGP. The reason for this is simply the amount of routes that a bgp router can receive could overload an igp very easily, so you would definitely want to filter routes out when doing this.
    After you add this, clear your bgp neighbors and you should start seeing routes.
    HTH,
    John
    *** Please rate all useful posts ***

  • How do you Redistribution EIGRP into OSPF and maintain a distance of 250 for a static route?

    Ok, I have scoured the forums long enough and have to post. The design is below. I moved a firewall to our new data center, which required adding some static routes for VPN connections and broadband backups. To minimize the amount of static routes I redistribute static into EIGRP with a route-map and prefix-list.
    My problem is the next part of my network. When the data leaves my 56128's it hits an edge device connecting to our dark fiber. On this edge device I am running OSPF onto the dark fiber, then redistribute some EIGRP subnets into OSPF and again all is well.
    Everything works up until the point the redistributed routes hit my RIB at my main data center where I am running IBGP. IBPG is run between our MPLS router and core for all our remote sites. When my backup route from the 56128's hits the cores, it supersedes the BGP route because the AD route O E2 [110/20] is lower than the BGP AD B [200/0]. Given the configuration below what can be done to remedy this? Oh when I redistribute I can only change the AD for the backup routes, all other routes should stay the same.
    56128's where my static routes are:
    ip route 192.168.101.0/24 192.168.30.77 name firewall 250
    router eigrp 65100
       redistribute static route-map Static-To-Eigrp
    route-map Static-To-Eigrp permit 10
       match ip address prefix-list Static2Eigrp
    ip prefix-list Static2Eigrp seq 2 permit 192.168.101.0/24
    Edge device:
    router eigrp 65100
     network 172.18.0.5 0.0.0.0
     network 172.18.0.32 0.0.0.3
     network 172.18.0.36 0.0.0.3
     redistribute ospf 65100 metric 2000000 0 255 1 1500
     redistribute static metric 200000 0 255 1 1500 route-map STATICS_INTO_EIGRP
     passive-interface default
     no passive-interface Port-channel11
     no passive-interface Port-channel12
     eigrp router-id 172.18.0.5
    router ospf 65100
     router-id 172.18.0.5
     log-adjacency-changes
     redistribute eigrp 65100 subnets route-map EIGRP_INTO_OSPF
     passive-interface default
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet1/0/2
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet2/0/1
     no passive-interface GigabitEthernet2/0/2
     network 172.18.0.0 0.0.255.255 area 0
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 5 permit 172.18.0.0/16 le 32
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 10 permit 192.168.94.0/29 le 32
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 15 permit 192.168.26.32/29 le 32
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 20 permit 192.168.30.72/29 le 32
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 25 permit 192.168.20.128/25 le 32
    ip prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF seq 26 permit 192.168.101.0/24 le 32 <- Backup Route for MPLS Remote Office
    route-map EIGRP_INTO_OSPF permit 10
     match ip address prefix-list EIGRP_INTO_OSPF

    So in the case of a /24. If it were say broken up into /25's? From our remote sites we are using aggregate-address summary-only. Not sure how I would advertise a more specific route via BGP, sorry.
    I didnt have this problem until I moved my firewalls. They plugged into the cores where IBGP was running and the static never kicked in unless the bgp route disappeared. I guess I could use my static redistribution for my VPN sites and use statics across the cores for the handful of backup links I have.

  • Question about network statement in OSPF and BGP

    The network statements in OSPF and BGP can be used to advertise networks. But I'm not clear under what circumstances would make more sense to use network statements to advertise a network than by using other methods to have the network learned by other routers.
    Here is an example: assume I'm running BGP on router A. I want to advertise network 10.1.1.0/24 to other BGP peers. I have a OSPF route for this network. I can do 2 things: one is to use "network 10.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0", the other is to do "redistribute OSPF ... route-map OSPF-INTO-BGP", and create a prefix list to permit 10.1.1.0/24.
    Both would work to have this network learned by other BGP peers. But which is better for what purpose?
    Thanks a lot
    Gary

    Hi Gary,
    There is one little difference between the use of the two approaches - the route injected into BGP by using a network statement will carry an Origin attribute of IGP, whereas the route injected using redistribution will have an Origin attribute of Incomplete. Now, that is not a huge issue since you can always change that whatever value you desire both with the use of the network statement and redistribution. The important thing, however, is that in the BGP best path selection process, the Origin attribute comparison is fairly high up and will prefer a route with the attribute of IGP.
    Apart from that, there is absolutely no difference between using the network statement and using redistribution with a route-map that matches exactly on the same route that you would have specified with the network statement.
    I guess one advantage of using the redistribute approach is that it does not clutter up the BGP config. If you wish to add more routes, you simply add them to the prefix list so that you don't really touch the BGP config portion at all..
    Hope that helps - pls do remember to rate posts that help.
    Paresh

  • BGP decision algorithm - help needed - stumped

    Hello gurus!  hoping for a BGP expert to chime in here. Im studying for my CCIE, and there is something in Jeff Doyle's Routing TCP/IP vol2 book that I just cant seem to figure out and its really stalling my understanding of the BGP path selection algorithm.  
    Its on pg 195, example 3-57, attached as an image in this post (Ive also attached the network diagram that this output refers to). Basically its an output of "show ip bgp" and whats stumping me is simply: for the aggregate route 192.168.192.0/21, why has this router selected as best (>) the one via next hop 192.168.1.254?? I would have thought based on the presence of the LocalPref = 100 on the 192.168.1.237 route that would have been selected.  But apparently not! Heres a walk through of the path selection logic as i understand it:
    1/WEIGHT: both 0, so skipped. 
    2/LOCAL_PREF: this is my problem, .237 should win, but ignoring for now...
    3/ORIGINATED LOCALLY: neither are they are learnt from BGP peers, so skipping.
    4/AS_PATH: both identical, AS100 only, so skipping
    5/ORIGIN CODE: both are 'i' (IGP), both were created from "aggregate-address" statements on their originating routers downstream in AS100
    6/MED: both empty, so skipping
    7/PREFER [eBGP] over [confedBGP] over iBGP: so the .254 route apparently wins on this condition... which in isolation, i agree with (clearly the eBGP .254 route is better than the .237 iBGP candidate).
    .... however what about step 2/LOCAL_PREF!?  
    looking forward to some expert guidance here to help me squash this one :) 
    thank in advance, 
    Keiran

    Hello,
    Keiran are you talking about "Orgin" attribute or ORIGINATED LOCALLY as this attribute i am not able to find it...that attribute anywhere:
    http://netcerts.net/bgp-path-attributes-and-the-decision-process/
    Path Attributes:
    Attribute
    Class
    ORIGIN
    Well-know mandatory
    AS_PATH
    Well-know mandatory
    NEXT_HOP
    Well-know mandatory
    LOCAL_PREF
    Well-know discretionary
    ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
    Well-know discretionary
    AGGREGATOR
    Optional transitive
    COMMUNITY
    Optional transitive
    MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED)
    Optional nontransitive
    ORGINATOR_ID
    Optional nontransitive
    ORGINATOR_ID
    Optional nontransitive
    CLUSTER_LIST
    Optional nontransitive
    Also there is similar question on learning forums:
    https://learningnetwork.cisco.com/thread/36845
    From the forum:
    "Locally Originated means that the local router is the one that generated the route with either a network statement, and aggregate statement, redistribution, or conditional route injection.  It's not an attribute that is included in the UPDATE messge, instead it's just used by the local process as part of the path selection, where the router will prefer its own locally originated routes over someone else's origination of the same prefix."
    Hopefully this will help.
    BTW i am reading same book and too bad Mr. Doyle did not include full configs for all routers, as i am trying to simulate his scenarios sometimes it is not working as in his book, now i have issue on next page 197 why Orgin IGP is not taking precedence over Incomplete even if one is learned via EBGP and other over iBGP...driving me nuts.
    Regards,
    Lukasz

  • Inject BGP Default Routes into Multiple VRF before Best Path Selection

    Hello, 
    I have the following setup:
    Multiple Border Routers with eBGP sessions to external AS. We receive a default route from this multiple AS to keep the Table manageable. We noticed an important part of our traffic was been SW routed instead of CEF when we had the Full Internet table. Router Resources came to the ground when we changed to a default. 
    Now I want to separate this default routes into different VRF. Attached is the Diagram. 
    My question is,  the multiple default route all go into the BGP Table. The BGP table then select the best route and place it on the RIB and then to the FIB. 
    I want to redistribute the different Route on the BGP table prior to the Best path selection algorithm and placed on the RIB. 
    How can I achieve this?

    Hi,
    Redistribution of multiple routes to same prefix is not possible. Even if you have configured BGP multipath and all different bgp routes got installed into routing table, during redistribution only route will be redistributed. 
    Also would like to understand the requirement of redistributing multiple BGP routes in to IGP. As per your diagram, 3 different eBGP sessions are on three different routers, so you can prefer eBGP route over iBGP received from other routers and can distribute eBGP route to IGP from each router. Thus you will have three different default routes in to IGP in core.
    Please don't forget to rate this post if it has been helpful
    - Akash

Maybe you are looking for