1. Home
  2. Cisco Systems
  3. BGP vs OSPF routes validity

BGP vs OSPF routes validity

I have got a problem with BGP routes. Got 2 Gateways. They are connected to BGP and to OSPF and they do mutual redistribution of the routes. For the route below I got the following problem. Got two BGP and one OSPF routes for the same subnet 10.0.0.0/24. One is announced via EBGP (peer 1.144.126.128) and the other one come from the redistribution (origin incomplete). I expect the BGP to take over, but this does not happen. My thought is that BGP process see two different BGP entries for the same subnet and it thinks that there is a loop and it does not insert a BGP route in the routing table.

Looking to the following output it is the only idea I have got.

Any other explanation? Any Cisco web site link to explain this?

Router1#sh ip bgp | include 10.0.0.0

BGP routing table entry for 10.0.0.0/24, version 698 Paths: (2 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to non peer-group peers:

1.144.126.128 2856 64530 1.144.126.128 from 1.144.126.128 (1.144.126.128) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Local 1.9.205.200 from 0.0.0.0 (10.97.8.200) Origin incomplete, metric 199, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best

O E1 10.0.0.0/24 [110/199] via 1.9.205.200, 01:37:36, FastEthernet0/0

Any help is appreciated

Matteo

Reply to
matteo_cardelli
Loading thread data ...

Hi,

matteo snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk schrieb:

That indicates, that the route #2 is the best route, because the WEIGHT is 32768, which is better than the weight of the first route (0). That route would be installed in the FIB but

you also have an OSPF-process running and this one has the same route too. Now, while external BGP (that would be BGP-Route #1) has an administrative distance of 20 (which ist better than OSPF 110), the second BGP-route is an internal route (AFAIR, because of being redistributed into BGP on the local router), and therefore has an AD of 200.

So, when coosing the right route to be entered into the FIB, the ospf has preference over the bgp-route, because that would be route#2, an internal bgp-route.

Mathias

Reply to
Mathias Gaertner

Thanks,

it seems that BGP is shooting himself on the feet, iBGP is taking over and then it is losing against the OSPF. So the fact that the two BGP routes are in the BGP table it means that the routes are valid.Correct? Two routes are invalidating each other is not a valid explanation.

Reply to
matteo_cardelli

Well, VALID is a crucial word here. The BGB-Table holds a lot of routes, not all of them CAN and WILL make it in the FIB. Do NOT confuse the routing-table of a routing-protocol with the FIB, the actual routing-table you see with "show ip route".

In your case, the iBGP-route has precedence IN THE BGP-PROCESS since it's weight (a locally adminstered parameter) is higher then that of the eBPG-Route. So this route is considered the best-route, aka the candidate-route to be entered into the FIB. But it is an iBGP-learned route and therefore has an administrative distance of 200 associated with it. The FIB-rule is: Take all routes from all routing-processes into FIB. If two (or more) equal routes exist, take the one with the lower AD. And OSPF has a lower AD (110). It's the normal behaviour and no shooting in the foot :-)

How to solve?

You really should reconsider your routing-policy so that this will not happen at all. Why is it that the route appears as iBGP AND eBGP anyway? Do you really have to redistribute all of these OSPF-routes into BGP at THIS place or AT all?

Mathias

matteo snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk schrieb:

Reply to
Mathias Gaertner

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.