Hi people,

First of all, thank you for all your replies, I'm sorry for the delay in my answer.

With your feedback I have tried a BGP peering on my home lab between a Cisco and OpenBSD bgpd:

Cisco primary 10.0.0.1 secondary 192.168.0.1 OpenBSD primary 10.0.0.2 secondary 192.168.0.2

On OpenBSD bgpd configuration I have set up local-address for peer 10.0.0.1:

neighbor 10.0.0.1 { local-address 10.0.0.2 remote-as 65500 }

After configuration on both sides, I did a clear ip bgp 192.168.0.2 on the Cisco side to force reestablishing the peering as a client (ephemeral to 179). That's the tcpdump on the OpenBSD side:

10.0.0.1.15357 > 192.168.0.2.179: S 2018010072:2018010072(0) win 16384 10.0.0.1.15357 > 192.168.0.2.179: S 2018010072:2018010072(0) win 16384

Although Cisco router has a connected secondary IP to peer 192.168.0.2, Cisco tries to set up the peering with the primary address.

A few seconds later, OpenBSD successfully establishes peering with the Cisco box as a client (ephemeral to 179) because of the possibility of configuring local-address:

192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: S 957503115:957503115(0) win 65535 192.168.0.1.179 > 192.168.0.2.46380: S 949964186:949964186(0) ack 957503116 win 16384 192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: . ack 1 win 65535 192.168.0.2.46380 > 192.168.0.1.179: P 1:40(39) ack 1 win 65535 : BGP [|BGP OPEN] (DF) [tos 0xc0]

I know that for many of you, this config could seem in someway really stupid. That config was thought for a temporary peer migration not for a definitive config.

Any comments on the results?

Take Care,

-- Carlos

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:34:32 +0000 (GMT), Stephen J. Wilcox <ste...@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote: