Re: Clarification on bgpd behaviour

2015-07-20 Thread Pedro Caetano
i'm replying to this thread so people browsing archives do not read deprecated info. The recent commits on kroute fixes the issue reported. When the interface is down the local link is no longer listed in the routing table. Thank you for your work! On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Caetan

Re: Clarification on bgpd behaviour

2015-01-15 Thread Pedro Caetano
That is correct, all routers share a /28 segment, r1 talks with upstream1 and upstream2, r2 talks with upstream1 and upstream2 each with its own private AS. Tomorrow i'll try your suggestions and report back. Thank you, Pedro Caetano On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On

Re: Clarification on bgpd behaviour

2015-01-15 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:38:50PM +, Pedro Caetano wrote: > Hi I have setup openbsd routers running dual homed with another pair of > upstream routers announcing a default route. > Each router has two interfaces, egress and ingress. > r1 - openbsd1 > r2 - openbsd2 > r3 - upstream1 > r4 - upstr

Clarification on bgpd behaviour

2015-01-15 Thread Pedro Caetano
Hi I have setup openbsd routers running dual homed with another pair of upstream routers announcing a default route. Each router has two interfaces, egress and ingress. r1 - openbsd1 r2 - openbsd2 r3 - upstream1 r4 - upstream2 vio0 is the external interface uses a /28 network to talk ibgp with two