Comments for

Comment on Bug on STL Vector assignment operator by edeguzman

edeguzman — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:01:23 +0000

I get it now. Thanks for your response. It was my mistake so far, I thought that vector doesn’t provide for null at the last element just like the standard array does.
From the way I see it that the error checking of vector for subscripts going outside of range is from the null itself at the last element.

Comment on Bug on STL Vector assignment operator by pizer

pizer — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:14 +0000

The C++ standard doesn’t enforce array bounds checking for operator[] but it enforces array bounds checking for the function “at”. If you use “at” instead you’ll notice that you’re actually accessing the vector with an invalid index 2. The vector has size 2 and thus only the elements at(0) and at(1) are valid but at(2) is not.

What happened is that you wrote into the wild memory and got away with it but wondered why the vector didn’t copy the “last” element. Well, it did copy the last element. But the last element was “200″ because test.size()==2.

Comment on Wireless WPA Configuration in Freebsd by qatanah

qatanah — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:49:29 +0000

Thanks dude, this really helps!

Comment on Injecting IGP routes into BGP by edeguzman

edeguzman — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:05:13 +0000

Hi, sorry for the late reply. From the way I picture out your problem is that you are experiencing two the same routes that is coming from the EIGRP and the other from BGP. But the BGP route was preferred rather than from EIGRP route? From your statements I can sense that your talking about external EIGRP and external BGP ? External BGP has a lower BGP AD than the EIGRP AD so it means that BGP routes will always be preferred. If you change the EIGRP AD into 10, the EIGRP route should be preferred because BGP AS is 20 (by default). Or try changing BGP AD using this cisco command distance bgp 200 200 20. You told me earlier that you use that command distance bgp 20 200 19, distance bgp command is defined as distance bgp (external) (internal) (local route) , the external AS was still 20 that’s why BGP routes will still be preferred in its process.

Furthermore you also told me that you had injected the EIGRP route into BGP? So I’m thinking that you had redistributed the EIGRP route into BGP. From doing it, the EIGRP route became part of BGP routes in which you should be seeing in BGP table. It will have origin attribute value of INCOMPLETE. Naturally that route will not be preferred if there exist the same route entry that was originated in BGP. That’s the reason why that redistributed route will not be advertise out in BGP instead the other route (route originated in BGP) is being advertised. There’s always a route selection process in BGP that is based on hierarchy.

That would be all….

Comment on Injecting IGP routes into BGP by Nick Knatt

Nick Knatt — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:22:10 +0000

hello ! so far so good !
i am experiencing a situation, where a perticular EIGRP route is also injected into BGP elsewhere into the network, making that other route more preferable because of BGP lower admin distance. how can i force the EIGRP route not only to be preferred in that specific router but also being advertised out thru BGP from there ? it seems that the box likes BGP routes much more than EIGRP ones . route-maps dont allow setting admin distance in EIGRP process, the distance bgp 20 200 19 command in the bgp process did not help.
manipulating the route’s local preference in the bgp network statement also did not make the box switch to eigrp preference.
IOS version: C3725-IS-M, Version 12.3(26)

any ideas ?
much apprechiated,
Nick