Route Reflector on physical interfaces

adeel32

Dear All,

Can anyone point out the mistake as i cannot able to configure RR on physical interfaces. reference diagram on JNCIP book page 387 and problem that i am facing on page 390? i am shraing my routers configuration. R4 and R2

root@R4# show
## Last changed: 2009-09-28 20:11:41 UTC
version 8.5R1.14;
system {
root-authentication {
encrypted-password "$1$7epVys9V$XhoSvP2NGWW9mTDYq1ORs."; ## SECRET-DATA
}
}
interfaces {
em2 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.2.10/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
em3 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.2.6/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
em4 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.4.9/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.3.4/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.0002.0100.0000.3004.00;
}
}
}
}
routing-options {
static {
route 192.168.40.0/24 reject;
}
autonomous-system 65412;
}
protocols {
bgp {
group cluster-3.3.3.3 {
type internal;
local-address 10.0.3.4;
export ibgp;
cluster 3.3.3.3;
neighbor 10.0.4.13;
neighbor 10.0.4.10;
}
group core {
type internal;
local-address 10.0.3.4;
export ibgp;
neighbor 10.0.3.3;
neighbor 10.0.3.5;
}
}
isis {
interface em2.0 {
level 1 disable;
}
interface em3.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface em4.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0 {
level 1 disable;
}
}
}
policy-options {
policy-statement ibgp {
term 1 {
from {
protocol static;
route-filter 192.168.40.0/24 exact;
}
then accept;
}
}
}

---

root@R-2# show
## Last changed: 2009-09-28 21:02:25 UTC
version 8.5R1.14;
system {
root-authentication {
encrypted-password "$1$.z0roC0j$lOqK1Yv6wFkBFeAe33cS0."; ## SECRET-DATA
}
}
interfaces {
em0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.4.6/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
em1 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.4.2/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
em4 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.4.10/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.0.6.2/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.0002.0100.0000.6002.00;
}
}
}
}
routing-options {
static {
route 192.168.20.0/24 reject;
}
autonomous-system 65412;
}
protocols {
bgp {
group internal {
type internal;
local-address 10.0.6.2;
export ibgp;
neighbor 10.0.4.1;
neighbor 10.0.4.9;
}
}
isis {
interface em0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface em1.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface em4.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
}
}
policy-options {
policy-statement ibgp {
term 1 {
from {
protocol static;
route-filter 192.168.20.0/24 exact;
}
then accept;
}
}
}

Aldur

I believe that the problem lies with how you are sourcing your BGP sessions.

Notice how your neighbor statements are for the interface address where as you local-address is your lo0 interface.

adeel32 wrote: »

protocols {
bgp {
group cluster-3.3.3.3 {
type internal;
local-address 10.0.3.4;
export ibgp;
cluster 3.3.3.3;
neighbor 10.0.4.13;
neighbor 10.0.4.10;
}

Same thing here

adeel32 wrote: »

protocols {
bgp {
group internal {
type internal;
local-address 10.0.6.2;
export ibgp;
neighbor 10.0.4.1;
neighbor 10.0.4.9;
}
}

If you are going to source the sessions from your loopback address then your peers better be peering with your loopback address. If you want your peers to peer with you physical interface address then you need to source your session from your physical interface address.

Word of advice here, you'll never ever ever ever deploy a network that will have BGP sessions peering with the physical interface address of a router. The book points this out to show you that it can be done but it also later says that this is bad form and lacks the redundancy aspects of loopback peerings.

Soo, get this working untill you understand the concept but don't focus to much on it. Focus more on the loopback peering and you'll be fine.