This question regarding the eBGP/iBGP communication conundrum is tricky: on the one hand we focus on the 192.168.1.2 router and this has got AS 101 configured, on the other hand, the remote router (192.168.1.1) claims as its AS the number 100. Since this log demonstrates a misconfiguration, who's point of view will be preponderant? It is no quite clear why this should be an eBGP session because putting the same AS number on the remote BGP speaker would solve the problem. Besides, we are taking the point of view of the log poducing router. The answer to demonstrate the session should be an eBGP one is the TCP connection is made with the source and IP addresses of only one subnet (these routers share a L2 link) and this complies with eBGP best practices for directly connected BGP speakers. iBGP speakers should source its TCP session from a loopback interface, thusly having diferent subnet sourced IP address for this endeavor.
upvoted 1 times
...
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
julin_10
11 months, 2 weeks agosovietratta
1 year, 3 months agoElvenking
1 year, 5 months ago