Hello,
The 44.24.240/16 network is functional, alive and kicking.
I was talking about 44.140.0.0/16, The one with the gateway inside its own subnet, that raises the questions. And that one is announced:
The subnet in question is verry announced:
44.140.0.0/16 *[BGP/170] 04:45:48, MED 0, localpref 100 AS path: 2603 1653 2839 8973 I > to 80.81.192.241 via xe-1/1/0.0 [BGP/170] 5w1d 02:52:13, MED 0, localpref 100 AS path: 3257 1299 1299 1299 2603 1653 2839 8973 I > to 213.200.86.101 via xe-1/0/0.0
But with cuurent routing information, no tunnel can be constructed, since on tunnel setup the gateway can not be resolved.
And there is 44.140,7.1 inside, directly reachable.
Have RIP44d parse the routing table; and if a 44 GW via address is found:
- add to a table for BGPed subnets
- add the /32 to the main routing table
- add an ip route rule with a higher priority to look for the GW IP on
the main table
- add a ip route rule with a higher priority to look for the subnet on
the BGPed table
Basically, this automates my script.
Now the good question is, how do you know thode BGPed networks without having access to a global BGP table? That is why I proposed the 0.0.0.0 as gateway to indicate that, and this doesn't need major changes on either side.
Just use 0.0.0.0 for directly announced subnets or individual gateways. This should trigger the instatement of a higher priority route targeting the default local gateway. For subnets, 0.0.0.0 would have the same behavior (direct routing). If tunneling is provided defining the gateway as a /32 with gw 0.0.0.0 and the tunnel with that gateway as usual gateway would give a correct behavior. And it will keep the broadcasts RIPv2 compatible (meaning that at least one can dissect them in wireshark for debuging).
Matius, YO2LOJ
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lleachii@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2015 18:19 To: 44net@hamradio.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [44net] 44 Network behind BGPed 44 Address
But what I don't get is the following: Why isn't 44.140.0.1 announced to use tunneling via its public IP (192.16.126.18 I think)? Or why announce it at all in the RIP if it the whole subnet is is BGPed?