On 03/06/11 12:04, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> ...but I would not normally expect them to advertise the Local route.
>> Certainly our 6500s (12.2(33)SXI5) are not.
>
> Certainly, and it doesn't happen in IPv4. We could filter out the local
> /128 prefixes on that peering, but it just seems wrong.
For the avoidance of doubt: you shouldn't need to filter it. It
shouldn't be there, period. It's not in our routers (maybe an IOS bug?)
>
>> Can you send:
>>
>> sh run part router bgp
>> sh run int<the p2p>
>
> I'll do that under separate cover.
I can't see anything obvious in the config, and I can't reproduce this
on the bench with a pair of SXI5 6500s. The config I'm trying is not
exactly the same, but it's not wildly dis-similar.
One thing I do see is that "next-hop-self" doesn't seem to be having any
effect; the routes my "test" router receives have, as I would expect in
iBGP, next hops from the IGP.
I'm wondering if something is different about the way IOS handles this
config between IPv4 and IPv6, and that's what's causing it.
You might try asking somewhere like cisco-nsp or of course whoever
provides your support.
|