cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
582
Views
0
Helpful
6
Replies

BGP weird behavior

krishnadig
Level 1
Level 1

Hi Friends,

I am facing a weird issue with BGP routing in Nexus 3k (NX OS 6). 

Router A (AS 6500) and B (AS 6600) are eBGP peers. 

Router A:

int Eth1/1.100 (no vrf) IP 1.1.1.1 & peer 2.2.2.2

int Eth1/1.200 (vrf test) IP 10.10.10.10 & peer 20.20.20.20

Router A BGP config:

router bgp 64100
  log-neighbor-changes
  address-family ipv4 unicast
  neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 6600
    local-as 65500 no-prepend replace-as
    timers 1 3
    address-family ipv4 unicast
    soft-reconfiguration inbound always
vrf test
    address-family ipv4 unicast
neighbor 20.20.20.20 remote-as 6600
      local-as 65500 no-prepend replace-as
       address-family ipv4 unicast
       soft-reconfiguration inbound always

 

There are 2 instances of BGP running on Router A with same local & remote AS; one in global routing table and other in VRF test. The BGP adjacency comes up fine between the peers one at a time; however I have noticed that only 1 BGP session remains in "established" state at a given point of time - either the one in global routing table or the one in VRF Test. And the other one goes to Idle / Active state. If I clear BGP session for the idle/active one, it comes up and the other one goes down.

 

Is this normal? Or is there flaw in the design? How do I overcome this scenario?

6 Replies 6

Hello.

From the configuration I don't see: ebgp-multihop and update-source - this could be a reason!?

Hi, thanks for responding. I dont think so; however as I mentioned, one works at a time. So if it would have been an issue of reachablity, it would have never come up.

thx

Hi,

I had raised a Cisco TAC and understood there is a bug in Nexus for the OS used on my device. BTW, its nothing to do with BGP.

https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuw02851

 

Hello.

could you please share your service request (SR/ticket) number?

Hi, here it is 636628533

The issue is with ACL applied to one sub-interface impacts the other sub interface (with same physical interface). So I prepared just 1 ACL, with the intersting traffic for both sub-interfaces, and applied it to both. Its working now.

I will have to manage it with this workaround until Dec 2015 end, until the OS with bug fix is released.

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Review Cisco Networking products for a $25 gift card