In Cisco document about BGP "remove-private-as", it says "if the ASpath contains the AS of the peering router (through eBGP), then the AS's will not be stripped".
My question is: when a route is received from the peering router, its AS Path always has the peering router's AS# appended. So the assumption in the document is always true. Then what's the point to even have the assumption?
If A has a private AS, all routes it advertises to B will contain that private AS#. If you have configured "remove-private-as" on B, it will strip that private AS# when advertising those routes to C. Now, if B somehow decides to advertise those routes back to A, that's where that statement from the Cisco Document comes in. If B stripped that private AS# from these routes, A will not know that it should drop those routes because it contains its own AS#. That's the kind of situation it is protecting against.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...