Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

[andrew@2sheds.de]

Hi Martin,

at least his upstream seems to be doing the right thing

Show Level 3 (San Jose, CA) BGP routes for 209.243.46.0 

BGP routing table entry for 209.243.32.0/20
Paths: (9 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
  209 1785 21767, (aggregated by 21767 209.243.32.1)
  AS-path translation: { ASN-QWEST APPLIED WASHINGTON-COLLEGE }
    core2.SanJose1 (metric 41) from core2.SanJose1 (core2.SanJose1)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal,
atomic-aggregate, best
      Community: North_America NA_Lclprf_86 United_States NA_Peer
NA_Dedicated_Facility NA_MEDs_Ignored San_Jose
  7018 21767 21767, (aggregated by 21767 209.243.32.1)
  AS-path translation: { ATT-INTERNET4 WASHINGTON-COLLEGE
WASHINGTON-COLLEGE }
    core1.Dallas1 (metric 3788) from core1.Dallas1 (core1.Dallas1)
      Origin IGP, metric 100000, localpref 86, valid, internal,
atomic-aggregate
      Community: North_America NA_Lclprf_86 United_States NA_Peer
NA_Dedicated_Facility NA_MEDs_Ignored Dallas
  

.....

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 03:18:30PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Thedore Knab <tjk@annapolislinux.org> [2002.09.26.1508 +0200]:
> > ip route 209.243.34.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> > ip route 209.243.35.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
.....
> > ip route 209.243.47.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> 
> ip route 209.243.32.0 255.255.255.0 <where things go if not FastEthernet0/0>
> ip route 209.243.32.0 255.255.240.0 FastEthernet0/0
>