Solved: Redistributing via bgp

rajivrajan1 · ‎11-19-2008

Im matching some Prefixes - Acccesslist and redistributing them in to bgp via a route map.

But for all my prefixes in static its saying Redistributing via bgp, when i chk by sho ip route x.x.x.x

y so ?

Giuseppe Larosa · ‎11-19-2008

Hello Rajeev,

if you compare the output of show ip route for two prefixes, one matching the route and one not matching you will see a difference:

the matching one has an additional line that says

advertised by ...

see the following example:

RT-RM-TLD066-RG-EST-2#sh ip route 10.34.16.48

Routing entry for 10.34.16.48/28

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)

Redistributing via isis

>>> Advertised by isis metric-type internal level-1-2 route-map red_stat

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* directly connected, via Tunnel59

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is

that line is missing for a prefix not matching the route-map

the line redistributing via BGP just tells there is a red static inside router bgp.

Hope to help

Giuseppe

View solution in original post

royalblues · ‎11-19-2008

If you are redistributing static routes into BGP, it is normal to see Redistributing via bgp when you do a sh ip route for that prefix

Narayan

rajivrajan1 · ‎11-19-2008

thanx for the reply narayan .

Im saying the static routes which r not matching the route map ( access-list) will not be redistributed in to bgp.

But thos routes also saying redistributing via bgp. can any one explain pls

Jon Marshall · ‎11-19-2008

Rajeev

Perhaps if you posted the config we would be able to help you further.

Jon

rajivrajan1 · ‎11-19-2008

thanx for reply jon,

router bgp xxx

redistribute static route-map STATIC-BGP

route-map STATIC-BGP permit 10

match ip address STATIC-BGP

set as-path prepend xxx xxx xxx

ip access-list standard STATIC-BGP

permit 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.255

ip route 20.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.3 -------------> Static route not matching the acl

ip route 10.1.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.1.3 -------------> Static route matching the acl

sh ip route 10.1.1.0

Routing entry for 10.1.1.0/24

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0

Redistributing via bgp xxxx --- > saying Redistributing via bgp for match ,this is perfect( happening through bgp)

Advertised by bgp xxx route-map STATIC-BGP

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* 10.1.1.3

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

sh ip route 20.1.1.0

Routing entry for 20.1.1.0/24

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0

Redistributing via bgp xxxx --- > saying Redistributing via bgp ( even when it's not)

Advertised by bgp xxx route-map STATIC-BGP

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* 10.1.1.3

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

that it. i hope u got it.

Giuseppe Larosa · ‎11-19-2008

Hello Rajeev,

if you compare the output of show ip route for two prefixes, one matching the route and one not matching you will see a difference:

the matching one has an additional line that says

advertised by ...

see the following example:

RT-RM-TLD066-RG-EST-2#sh ip route 10.34.16.48

Routing entry for 10.34.16.48/28

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)

Redistributing via isis

>>> Advertised by isis metric-type internal level-1-2 route-map red_stat

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* directly connected, via Tunnel59

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is

that line is missing for a prefix not matching the route-map

the line redistributing via BGP just tells there is a red static inside router bgp.

Hope to help

Giuseppe

rajivrajan1 · ‎11-19-2008

Dear Giuseppe

I got it.Thanks a lot.Rated too ;)

marikakis · ‎11-19-2008

Hello,

I see "Advertised by bgp xxx route-map STATIC-BGP" in both routes or isn't that so?

In any case, I would do a "sh ip bgp ".

When having issues with redistribution, removing and re-applying the redistribution command or/and route-map might help.

Kind Regards,

M.

Jon Marshall · ‎11-19-2008

Giuseppe

I may be mistaken but it looks to me like both "sh ip route" statements have an "advertised by .." statement in them.

Jon

rajivrajan1 · ‎11-19-2008

no Giuseppe ,

U were correct , i did some editing in the outout as i could not find a non-matching static as it's production - which i really missed :P

Tlater i checked the diference and found ur statement exactly matches .. thanx a lot again.