[36463] in North American Network Operators' Group
Possible IOS bug w/respect to incorrect nexthop advert
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Fri Apr 6 14:55:41 2001
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104061430590.2837-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
One of our peers recently upgraded to IOS to:
Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software
IOS (tm) RSP Software (RSP-PV-M), Version 12.1(4)E, EARLY DEPLOYMENT
RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Copyright (c) 1986-2000 by cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 07-Nov-00 14:23 by eaarmas
Image text-base: 0x60010958, data-base: 0x60F7C000
ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(8)CA1, EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE
SOFTWARE (fc1)
BOOTFLASH: RSP Software (RSP-BOOT-M), Version 12.1(4)E, EARLY DEPLOYMENT
RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Ever since this upgrade, we've been seeing the following behavior:
When they announce prefixes to us, sometimes they get it right, as in, the
nexthop is set correctly and sometimes they get it wrong as in, the cisco
picks a random address from it's configured addresses and sends the
nexthop as that address.
Example getting it right:
2001/04/06 13:51:42 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 209.115.127.21, origin i, path 6259 6461 11042 8390 8431
2001/04/06 13:51:42 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd 195.230.6.0/24
2001/04/06 13:51:42 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd 195.230.7.0/24
Examples getting it wrong:
2001/04/06 13:52:10 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 216.28.125.77, origin i, path 6259 3549 701 7871
2001/04/06 13:52:10 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd UPDATE about 206.162.212.0/22 -- DENIED due to: non-connected next-hop;
2001/04/06 13:57:57 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd UPDATE w/ attr: nexthop 216.28.126.221, origin i, path 6259 7018 14046 14046
2001/04/06 13:57:57 BGP: 209.115.127.21 rcvd UPDATE about 216.241.140.0/23 -- DENIED due to: non-connected next-hop;
This behavior began when the peer upgraded their IOS.
Is this a documented issue or has anyone else seen this behavior?
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
