Hello, I have a basic question and am just now learning BGP.
AS 330 AS 331
---------- ---------- RTR A-----ebgp-----RTR B | | ibgp ibgp 1.1.1.0/16 | | RTR C-----ebgp------RTR D
Facts:
-Synchronization is disabled in both ASes.
-OSPF is the IGP in both ASes.
-RTR A exports BGP into OSPF and OSPF to BGP
-RTR C exports OSPF into BGP
-The EBGP peers (A to B and C to D) are connected via passive OSPF interfaces.
-A specific route, 1.1.1.0/16, exists on the IBGP peer between RTR B and RTR D. This route is advertised by both B and D is and accepted by A and C. RTR A accepts it with a local preference of 101, RTR C accepts it with a local preference of 100.
-RTR A announces this route to RTR C with local preference of 101, RTR C announces this route to RTR A with local preference of 100.
-RTR A and RTR C both have in the BGP route table two routes to the
1.1.1.0/16 network, one route learned via EBGP, the other route learned via IBGP. Traffic originated in AS 330 destined for 1.1.1.0/16 therefore goes out through RTR A due to higher local preference.Expected behaviour: If the EBGP peer between A and B is broken:
RTR A would have a single BGP route for the 1.1.1.0/16 learned via RTR C.
RTR C would not send out another update message to A advertising
1.1.1.0/16 because its BGP route table hasn't changed per se and is not advertising anything different.Exhibited behaviour: If the EBGP peer between A and B is broken, A no longer has the
1.1.1.0/16 route in its BGP route table. C still has the route learned via RTR D in its BGP route table and indicates it has advertised it to A, but A does not indicate this. A sniffer capture shows A and C both sending out withdraw messages for that route, but the trace does not show an update coming from C to A for this route.Issue: Is this expected behaviour for IBGP peers or is the software confused? If BGP to OSPF is disabled on RTR A and the A to B peer is broken, A still has it's route via C, and therefore the software wouldn't be an issue?
Thank you in advance. Charles