[10682] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: weird BGP cisco-ism? [problem resolved]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Howard)
Fri Jul 11 19:07:19 1997
From: Phil Howard <phil@charon.milepost.com>
To: c-huegen@quadrunner.com (Craig A. Huegen)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 17:58:14 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: matthew@scruz.ne, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.QUAD.3.96.970711152637.4698A-100000@quad.quadrunner.com> from "Craig A. Huegen" at Jul 11, 97 03:30:25 pm
Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> ==>I redistribute in a similar way, and have the statics to null0 as well.
> ==>
> ==>Still insisted on flapping at least twice every time it got the brief
> ==>hit on the /24 subnet coming from the outside world.
>
> What routing protocol do you use? If you're using a protocol which uses a
> hold-down (read: RIP), the holddown period causes the route to be
> withdrawn while marked as inaccessible in the IGP, and re-announced when
> the hold-down period goes away and the static route gets inserted.
You might try "no synchronization" in BGP. It solved some flapping for me
that I was getting between a pair of routers where the paths were always
getting marked inaccessible. My situation was different than this but it
seems to have enough similarity that maybe...
--
Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+
Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, |
Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. |
phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+
