ccnp route 300-101 pass4sure

ccnp route 300-101 pass4sure

R3 's loopback interface IP has been declared into OSPF , and R4 learns loopback routing through OSPF . Therefore, the BGP table for R4 is as follows: If the TCP is successfully established, the BGP process sends an Open message to the neighbor and enters Opensent. We restore the experimental environment to the basic configuration: BGP neighbor relationships are as follows Ip as-path access-list 1 permit _1$ In this case R1 on to R4 used strategy, 10.0 route AS_PATH insert 100 of AS number, while the results for the R4 over (64514) 100 100 , on the other side of R3 over 300 200 is 100 , R5 still preferably R4 , as ( 64512) Does not participate in the AS_PATH length calculation. If the network implements IBGP full interconnection ( IBGP neighbor relationship is established between each other ), then synchronization is meaningless and synchronization can be turned off. So today's CISCO IOS turns off synchronization rules by default. aggregate-address 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 as-set after, R1 can only learn to 2.0 , the summary route are rejected, the reason is 1.0 carries no-adver of Community Community , when the summary route plus the as-set keyword after Will inherit its community , so the summary route also carries no-adver , this time R3 and R4 , R4 and R5 establish IBGP neighbor relationships, and R3 R4 R5 uses LOOPBACK as the update source and refers to the neighbor . Protocol overview The configuration of R4 is as follows: Distribute-list 1 in Local updater ID is 0.0.0.0 (no valid interface found) *> 1.1.1.1/32 10.1.23.2 65 0 12 i * i100.0.2.0/24 192.1.168.2 3 0003.47d9.c8f1 2BB648AB interface-id 584a38f0 END Route matching tool Per packet load-sharing is disabled IP unicast RPF check is disabled Inbound access list is not set Outbound access list is not set Priority 120 (configured) R2#sh ip bgp 30.30.30.0/24 Ip default-network 172.16.0.0 We spotted FIG, R1 and R2 between runs RIP to exchange routing information, R2 by RIP learned the R1 release over 192.168.1.0/24 and 2.0 / 24 routing information loaded into the routing table, labeled R & lt . While R2 and R3 and running OSPF , establish OSPF adjacency, R2 also from R3 , by OSPF learned the two routes: 3.0 and 4.0 / 24 ,ccnp route 300-101 pass4sure, is also loaded into the routing table, labeled O . So, for R2 , it has its own route to the whole network, but inside R2 , we can understand this : it will not change the route learned from RIP .The OSPF route is told to R3 , and the route learned from OSPF is not sent to R1 as a RIP route . For R2 , although there is complete routing information in its own routing table, it is as if there is a gap between the entries of R and O , which cannot be exceeded.