On Jan 16, 2008 1:15 PM, Stuart Henderson  wrote:

quoted text
> On 2008/01/16 12:33, Eduardo Meyer wrote:

> > I have lowered holdtime for testing purposes only. With default value

> > the behavior is the same. I have just forced local-address to another

> > one, with "local-address  201.70.200.2" but still the same.

> >

> > Here is the tcpdum output

>

> that doesn't look like openbsd, ours is easy to read ;-)

>

> the peer just closes the connection on receipt of the Open.

> you can either try experimenting with disabling some options

> (announce ipv6 none, announce capabilities no) or better,

> talk to your peer and see what they have logged.

>

>

> 22:39:43.933609 IP (tos 0xc0, ttl   4, id 9934, offset 0, flags [DF],

> proto: TCP (6), length: 101) 201.87.225.16.57856 > 200.184.196.18.179:

> P, cksum 0x378b (incorrect (-> 0x69a3), 1:50(49) ack 1 win 33304

> : BGP, length: 49

>         Open Message (1), length: 49

>           Version 4, my AS 28660, Holdtime 90s, ID 201.87.224.253

>           Optional parameters, length: 20

>             Option Capabilities Advertisement (2), length: 6

>               Multiprotocol Extensions (1), length: 4

>                 AFI IPv4 (1), SAFI Unicast (1)

>                 0x0000:  0001 0001

>             Option Capabilities Advertisement (2), length: 2

>               Route Refresh (2), length: 0

>             Option Capabilities Advertisement (2), length: 6

>               Graceful Restart (64), length: 4

>                 Restart Flags: [R], Restart Time 0s

>                 0x0000:  8000 0000

> 22:39:43.939183 IP (tos 0xc0, ttl  63, id 2914, offset 0, flags [DF],

> proto: TCP (6), length: 52) 200.184.196.18.179 > 201.87.225.16.57856: F,

> cksum 0xf07e (correct), 1:1(0) ack 50 win 17376  22565151 105683507>

>

>

Hello,
This follow-up is to thank you all who replied and mention the

solution (what is good for the history). I forced binding to the

correct IP address declaring neighbor's local address, and added a

static route to the box, instead of using the default one, although

they were nexthoping to the same address.
Finally I removed the "passive" keyword. Now its OK with the first BGP

neighbor, I will setup the second tomorrow morning but probably there

wont be any other problem.
Thank you all and thanks for OpenBGP. Way simple, functional and much

better/clearer than cisco.
--

===========

Eduardo Meyer