Posted on December 7, 2018 9:33 pm
 |  Asked by James Byrne
 |  1078 views
0
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

My organization is developing lab scenarios to move our network towards implementing EVPN. Part of that process is to add the:
service routing protocols model multi-agent
command.

We have found a few unique situations where the default behavior of routing (outside of BGP) has changed. For example:
OSPF summary routes not working
Static routes to unreachable next hops (while the interface is up) are not placed in the RIB.

I have been unable to find any documentation outside about what actually changes when implementing that command. Is there a white paper about it, or a list of default behaviors that changes between the two modes?

Thanks!

0
Posted by Alexis Dacquay
Answered on December 7, 2018 10:38 pm

Hi James,

In term of configuration, you can verify whether anything previously configured is still active with ArBGP by entering the command:

show bgp configuration unsupported

It is quite important to verify this, to make sure everything you expect working (e.g. *was* working) is actually active.

Can you share your configs, to see what is involved in OSPF and BGP? I am just curious to see myself indeed such differences of behaviour.

If you are concerned something does not look right and you have some outputs demonstrating that, then maybe you can raise a case with the Arista TAC?

Regards,
Alexis

0
Posted by Kishan Patel
Answered on May 1, 2019 1:34 pm

Apologies in hijacking this thread but i’m also seeing these issues in a lab when running
service routing protocols model multi-agent

Running show bgp configuration unsupported shows:

route-map OSPF_REDIST permit 10
- match ip address access-list 1300
- set metric-type type-1
!
route-map OSPF_REDIST deny 100
- match ip address access-list 1301
!

If the above route-map commands are not supported, it means my static routes will not be redistributed into OSPF and hence the summary route will not be created.

I have also not been able to find any documentation outlining the effects on anything outside of BGP when enabling ArBGP

Hi Kishan,

What code version are you running? Can you share your ospf configs as well. I tried on 4.20.5 in lab and redistributing static in ospf with a route-map worked fine with Arbgp.

Thanks,
Aesha

(Aesha Parikh at May 24, 2019 6:51 pm)

Hi Aesha,

I was using 4.22.0F as there was a bug before this version with L3 VNI in the vEOS.
I’ve raised a case and its currently with the dev team.
So far they believe its just a cosmetic issue with the “show bgp configuration unsupported” command and that perhaps using prefix-lists in the route-map would remove this output when running the above command.

After retesting, in the official release (rather than the Early Field Trial is was using), the route-map does apply so corroborate that this is just a cosmetic issue.

(Kishan Patel at May 28, 2019 8:05 am)

Thanks for the update Kishan.

(Aesha Parikh at May 28, 2019 4:51 pm)
0
Posted by Michael Petry
Answered on July 3, 2019 2:59 pm

I ran into a similar issue and prefix-lists versus access-lists cleaned it.

Post your Answer

You must be logged in to post an answer.