Routing Table inconsistencies

Tue Jun 19 00:13:37 UTC 2001

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is probably a bone-head question, but what are the implications of
inconsistent-as's?

I know that I have _tons_ of bgp inconsitent-as paths, but no mbgp
inconsistent-as paths.

I also have 2 bgp peers, but only 1 mbgp peer.  I would think if you only
have 1 mbgp peer you could _not_ have any inconsistent-as paths as there
is only one source for the mbgp information, so only 1 path.  Right?

     **********************************************
        Tim Winders, MCSE, CNE, CCNA
        Associate Dean of Information Technology
        South Plains College
        Levelland, TX  79336

        Phone:	806-894-9611 x 2369
        FAX:	806-894-1549
        Email:	TWinders at SPC.cc.tx.us
     **********************************************

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, David Meyer wrote:

> Well, this is likely going to follow the same pattern that you've
> demonstrated, that is, NASA prefixes that are advertised directly
> to AS10888 and to their providers. Situation is somewhat of an
> special case (that is not to say that inconsistent AS isn't a
> problem in general). Interestingly, I'm not seeing either of
> these at the moment, e.g.
>
> orix.maoz.com#sh ip mbgp inconsistent-as
>
> orix.maoz.com#
>
> (doesn't seem to be a bug, as the 2 you mention aren't
> inconsistent at the moment)
>
> Maybe we need to get rid of 10888.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Reply-To:
> In-Reply-To: <3B2E8E9E.F64048DF at 21rst-century.com>; from tme at 21rst-century.com on Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 07:28:31PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello All;
> >>
> >>   We had a problem with a domain with two different AS paths in the BGP table, so I wrote a script to
> >> look for such problems.
> >>
> >> There are two prefixes in the current MBGP tables here with such problems :
> >>
> >>  Date of BGP Dump  Mon Jun 18 15:39:46 EDT 2001
> >>
> >>  ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix =  198.9.201.0       :
> >>
> >> *> 198.9.201.0      160.81.38.225           75             0 1239 10888 i
> >> *                   204.147.129.89                         0 145 24 i
> >>
> >>  ROUTING INCONSISTENCY Detected for Prefix =  198.9.202.0       :
> >>
> >> *  198.9.202.0      204.147.129.89                         0 145 24 i
> >> *>                  160.81.38.225           75             0 1239 10888 i
> >>
> >> And a total of 488 prefixes in the BGP tables with such problems !!!!!
> >>
> >> The complete lists are contained in
> >>
> >> http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.inconsistency and
> >> http://www.multicasttech.com/status/bgp.inconsistency
> >>
> >> I could update these regularly if there was any demand.
> >>
> >> I may be obtuse, but I cannot see how this could be a good thing.
> >>
> >>                                  Regards
> >>                                  Marshall Eubanks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> T.M. Eubanks
> >> Multicast Technologies, Inc
> >> 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
> >> Fairfax, Virginia 22030
> >> Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
> >> e-mail : tme at multicasttech.com
> >> http://www.on-the-i.com
> >>
> >> Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
> >>  Check the status of multicast in real time :
> >>  http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
> >>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (OSF1)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iEYEARECAAYFAjsumTQACgkQTPuHnIooYby9sQCfZmnpRildo8Irzqrx8ZvEvMBR
YVIAoJsoufICV+YMv+hbEwYaNxK/u234
=3anB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----