Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Route-reflector advertising routes back to originating rr-client

I have a strange problem with a route reflector advertising prefixes received from a route-reflector client back to the same rr-client. On the rr-client these prefixes can be seen by "debug bgp updates" but get "DENIED due to: ORIGINATOR is us".

Is it normal that the information about these prefixes should traverse the link from the RR to the RR-client and get denied by the receiver? They shouldn?t be sent, should they?

Platform is 7600/sup720-3BXL.


Re: Route-reflector advertising routes back to originating rr-cl


just a thought, but check for duplicate router ID's. Can you post the config of the respective RR and client ?



Cisco Employee

Re: Route-reflector advertising routes back to originating rr-cl

This is normal behavior. The RR clients are probably in the same dynamic update group, which is causing the same update to be sent to all of them, including the client who originally send the update. As you mention, this is not a problem as it will be rejected by the RR client.

Hope this helps,

Harold Ritter
Sr. Technical Leader
CCIE 4168 (R&S, SP)
México móvil: +52 1 55 8312 4915
Cisco México
Paseo de la Reforma 222
Piso 19
Cuauhtémoc, Juárez
Ciudad de México, 06600
New Member

Re: Route-reflector advertising routes back to originating rr-cl

Yes, they are in the same update group. But isn?t this causing extra processing on the receiver by filtering out the prefixes it gets in return? As I understand it the update groups are saving processor cycles on the RR but instead extra processor cycles are consumed on the client, which has to filter its own prefixes.

Think of a edge router which are receiving full Internet through EBGP and sending it to a RR in its own AS. It will get the full table back from the RR. Is this really what is the expected behaviour?

CreatePlease to create content