Mailing List Archive: BGP route table DISPLAY error using TERSE

hi all

This just happened to me today using --- JUNOS 5.5R3.1 built 2003-02-27 07:34:32 UTC

admin@srmum1-re0> show route table Gp_VRF

203.155.94.0/25 *[BGP/170] 03:28:51, localpref 100, from 202.123.213.83
AS path: 19440 64719 I
> to 213.181.39.25 via fe-0/3/1.3

[BGP/170] 3d 20:25:04, localpref 100, from 213.181.39.20
AS path: 6774 19440 64719 I
> to 213.181.39.25 via fe-0/3/1.3

This shows that to reach 203.155.94.0/25 the prefered path is via 202.123.213.83. This is perfectly correct.

I tried the same thing using 'terse' and this is what it shows me!!

admin@srmum1-re0> show route table Gp_VRF terse

* 203.155.94.0/25 B 170 100 >213.181.39.25 19440 64719 I
B 170 100 >213.181.39.25 6774 19440 64719 I

Has anyone ever seen this? I tried clearing the BGP connections with both peers but the problem persists!

There is no problem with route functionality but I am confused as to why the 'terse' output is 'incorrect'! Please let me know if I am missing something here....

regards,
Bosco

Hi Bosco,

On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:50:54AM +0530, Bosco Sachanandani wrote:
> 203.155.94.0/25 *[BGP/170] 03:28:51, localpref 100, from 202.123.213.83
> AS path: 19440 64719 I
> > to 213.181.39.25 via fe-0/3/1.3
> [BGP/170] 3d 20:25:04, localpref 100, from 213.181.39.20
> AS path: 6774 19440 64719 I
> > to 213.181.39.25 via fe-0/3/1.3
> This shows that to reach 203.155.94.0/25 the prefered path is via 202.123.213.83. This is perfectly correct.

No, the next-hop is shown as 213.181.39.25 in both cases, you just learnt that path from different sources.

> I tried the same thing using 'terse' and this is what it shows me!!
> admin@srmum1-re0> show route table Gp_VRF terse
> * 203.155.94.0/25 B 170 100 >213.181.39.25 19440 64719 I
> B 170 100 >213.181.39.25 6774 19440 64719 I
>
> Has anyone ever seen this? I tried clearing the BGP connections with both peers but the problem persists!

I'm not clear what the problem is? In terse view you are only seeing the next-hop and not where you learnt that next-hop from.

> There is no problem with route functionality but I am confused as to why the 'terse' output is 'incorrect'! Please let me know if I am missing something here....

Perhaps you can better identify the problem?

Regards,

Tony