I manged to peer successfully with our first of three ISPs. We do receive teh routes but all the routes BGP routes are inactive with the state gateway unreachable. Any obvious reasons of why this would be?
The TCP connection (BGP peering) works fine over two VLAN intefaces distinguishing between national and international traffic. The national interface's peer has a prefix count of 3359 whereas the international interface has only 1, the default route.
thank you for pointing me to that wiki article. I read through it and figured that I cannot apply “Add default route with scope < target-scope of BGP routes:” as the default route is also a BGP route (which I cannot adjust).
Further, all BGP routes received have a gateway which is directly connected though one of the two VLAN interfaces with a /31 network. If I add a static route for the default gateway (pointing to my international remote VLAN peer), the route will be inactive if I define the IP address as the gateway. As soon as I make this gateway an interface, the route becomes active. Unfortunately, this cannot be done to dynamic BGP routes.
Btw. we are running RB600 with ROS 4.11 .
this is full of manual edits – sorry, you’re on your own that way.
i don’t understand why people are so afraid of telling their IP or AS numbers.
also – the config does not look like being real with two upstream BGP peers being a.a.16.214 and a.a.16.216… normally the providers assign addresses to you for this purpose from their address spaces. this looks more like a school assignment to me.
before BGP make sure you understand IP addressing & in particular netmasks. and if you have real, unaltered config you can still post it.
sorry for the confusion. I thought I was just following common practise by not posting full IPs as this seems to be the case in the majority of posts. On the other hand, I am quite confident, that I can recreate the scenario with whichever IP addresses I want.
However, a.a. is meant to be 111.69. and the remote AS is 23655.
Do you want me to post the previous config with those amendments made?
The remote peer is a Juniper and it is indeed a real configuration as provided by the upstream ISP.
[stefan@toISP] > rout bgp pe pr
Flags: X - disabled, E - established
# INSTANCE REMOTE-ADDRESS REMOTE-AS
0 E default 111.69.16.216 23655
1 E default 111.69.16.214 23655
Active routes:
[stefan@toISP] > ip route print detail where active
Flags: X - disabled, A - active, D - dynamic,
C - connect, S - static, r - rip, b - bgp, o - ospf, m - mme,
B - blackhole, U - unreachable, P - prohibit
1 ADC dst-address=10.10.10.0/24 pref-src=10.10.10.2 gateway=toNetwork
gateway-status=toNetwork reachable distance=0 scope=10
42 ADC dst-address=111.69.16.214/31 pref-src=111.69.16.215
gateway=International_VLAN1425
gateway-status=International_VLAN1425 reachable distance=0 scope=10
43 ADC dst-address=111.69.16.216/31 pref-src=111.69.16.217
gateway=Domestic_VLAN1424 gateway-status=Domestic_VLAN1424 reachable
distance=0 scope=10
44 ADC dst-address=111.69.40.2/31 pref-src=111.69.40.3 gateway=toISP
gateway-status=toISP reachable distance=0 scope=10
45 ADC dst-address=111.69.40.16/28 pref-src=111.69.40.17 gateway=toNetwork
gateway-status=toNetwork reachable distance=0 scope=10
thanks for your reply. Can you please explain which part of RouterOS does not work with /31?
Since the peering works and I do receive all the routes through from the two peers, I assume /31 works on TCP and on general routing?
Is it just BGP related or which other functionalities suffer? Do you know, is there any plan to make RouterOS work with /31, please?
Roting in general will not work properly. As yo can see, when /31 is added ip address and broadcast address are the same.
0 ;;; toSnap
111.69.40.3/31 111.69.40.2 111.69.40.3 toISP
In RouterOS address should not match broadcast or network.
In your case I’m guessing BGP installs routes with gateway 111.69.40.2, routeros is unable to resolve the gateway because 111.69.40.2 is the network address.
Well, if I go static routes only, everything works sweet, as I can assign an interface as gateway. Doing BGP it populates the gateway with the peer IP (as expected). And this gateway shows as unavailable, even though the dynamic entry generated by IP address assignment show the gateway being available/being connected.
However, if this is still not related to BGP as you say, is there any plan to fix /31 functionality?
Mrz,
very good, my routes through one of the two VLANs are marked active now.
Traceroute in and out of the router still does not work.
Traceroute from the router out gives a timeout on the first hop.
traceroute from the outside fails at the last hop.
Somehow, the router still does not know, where to send the packets.
The interface is now assigned properly.