I HATE static routes. Once you get to a certain size, you'll be much
happier with OSPF. It's a lot easier than it looks but you
just have to play with it for a while. Setup three small Mikrotiks in
your office to get the hang of it. Then throw in two more and
mimic your real life network and see how it works.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yes, we split our IP space between them. Im still learning the
finer points of OSPF, For a control freak, moving from the comfort
of static routes across the network to letting some machine make
decisions for me is emasculating, So I need to make the OSPF bow
before me and call me master, then I will tackle the BGP with a
ball gag and whip
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Do you have more than one upstream? Hard to tell from the
message. If so, learn BGP with a quickness. ;-)
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*To: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent: *Monday, October 19, 2015 2:09:12 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Eoip and mpls
I plan on MPLS internally over the OSPF network, at least I
think thats what I should do. We have a bunch of customers
with more than two sites that would benefit.
Right now, for the upstream tunnel, since we dont currently
have any BGP, I am planning on the EOIP tunnel being part of
the OSPF network to fail bandwidth over to the right
statically routed upstream provider for the ARIN space,
Assuming we dont lose a provider at the same time as we lose a
primary backhaul, this should keep customer traffic flowing,
albeit with more hops. This is on RB1100ahx2 routers with
traffic never exceeding 200mbps either way.
Noting that we dont currently have BGP, so that not being an
option, how bad is what im doing in terms of networking 101
political correctness?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:30 PM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
You can layer EoIP over top of another VPN for security
and I usually use PPTP for this as I can see if the link
is connected and
for how long. If you aren't familiar with MPLS, EoIP is a
lot easier to debug and doesn't require your entire
network to be running
MPLS.
Running across CCRs, I can't tell the difference in
performance or CPU load between EoIP and MPLS/VPLS with
200Mbps of traffic.
If you are doing just a customer or two, I'd use EoIP. If
you plan on offering this to a larger customer base,
switch to MPLS.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Wow cool.
On 10/19/2015 1:37 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Here we go - from the .30 changelog:
*) tunnels - eoip, eoipv6, gre,gre6, ipip, ipipv6,
6to4 tunnels
have new property - ipsec-secret - for easy
setup of ipsec
encryption and authentication;
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Mathew Howard
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can use encryption with
EoIP these days... it's a fairly recent
addition, if I remember right.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:29 PM, That One Guy
/sarcasm <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
So what is this doing?
*ipsec-secret* (/string/; Default: ) When
secret is specified, router adds dynamic
ipsec peer to remote-address with
pre-shared key and policy with default
values (by default phase2 uses
sha1/aes128cbc). Both local-address and
remote-address of the tunnel must be
specified for router to create valid ipsec
policy.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Adam
Moffett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
100% less secure. There's no
encryption at all in EoIP.
On 10/19/2015 11:44 AM, That One Guy
/sarcasm wrote:
in the mikrotik implementation
with ipsec, how much less "secure"
than something like an ipsec VPN
tunnel? For the most part, since
its all routed traffic anyway,
security isnt all that great a
concern, other than maybe some
snmp strings I cant think of much
that would matter
We do have an instance, Im
assuming MPLS will be what would
be best, the customer has a 10mb
ptp fiber connection from another
provider terminated in our NOC as
a backup to their DIA with us over
our wireless infrastructure, but I
dont know, its all new to me
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:54 AM,
Adam Moffett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
EoIP is non-standard, and
while multiple platforms have
it, they are probably not
compatible.
The main reason to do EoIP is
if you need the entire layer2
header. I use it now and then
to default a device, then
bridge it's port with an EOIP
tunnel back to my office so
that I can access it from my
laptop on it's default IP.
You can also carry a full size
1500 byte packet on the EoIP
tunnel....it will be
fragmented on the outer layer
so there's an efficiency
penalty in doing so, so if
everything works with a
shorter MTU then use a shorter
MTU. I switched a VPN to an
EOIP tunnel for a library
whose SonicWall broke PMTUD
and thus there was packet loss
on the tunneled traffic until
I switched them to EoIP.
The other reason to do EoIP is
that it's stupid simple.
Downsides: EoIP is insecure.
Supposedly it's more cpu
intensive than other types of
tunnels, but in practice I
haven't noticed.
On 10/19/2015 2:28 AM, That
One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
More interested in eoip
comments, but when are
these two bad ideas, eoip
with the ipsec in particular.
I have two scenarios where
eoip will be necessary to
maintain upstream static
routing between providers,
one tunnel over the
interwebs and one tunnel
over our network since our
providers are
geographically isolated.
I'm having a hard time
figuring out if eoip is up
and coming or dying,
everything I read says its
new but the documents are
old, mikrotik documents
indicate it's proprietary
but Cisco docs mention it.
--
If you only see yourself as part
of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you
have already failed as part of the
team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the
team but you don't see your team as part
of yourself you have already failed as
part of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see
your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part
of the team.
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see
your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of
the team.
