With Mikrotik, depending on your typology, running iBGP over layer 3 is probably better than EoIP. In the past, I wasn't happy with the way things worked over EoIP. It's now over a direct, layer 2 connection and works 100%. You can run setup multi-hop BGP routing to do it over layer 3 (single setting in Winbox) but it's not as clean.
Could you have the path between the two routers be layer 2 via VPLS or just using switches? On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:27 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote: > VPLS is not currently present, thats on my "to learn" list > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Jesse DuPont < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The two BGP routers do not need to be on the same L2 network for the iBGP >> connection. >> >> >> *Jesse DuPont* >> >> Network Architect >> email: [email protected] >> Celerity Networks LLC >> >> Celerity Broadband LLC >> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc >> >> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband >> On 5/3/16 10:25 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> A BGP speaker would be a router speaking BGP. In this case, most likely >> your routers at the edge of your network that connect to your providers. >> >> Are the routers that are between your two BGP routers capable of running >> BGP, resource wise? >> >> Can you do a VPLS tunnel between your two BGP routers? If not, what about >> a VLAN? >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> >> *To: *[email protected] >> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 3, 2016 11:13:36 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] BGP and OSPF >> >> Mike, i said helmet, explain it to me like you would a 10 year old, then >> dumb it down to my level from there. >> >> I dont know what a bgp speaker is >> >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Mike Hammett < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Your OSPF network will just use default routes to get to your BGP >>> speakers. >>> >>> Your BGP speakers with full routes will choose the best path. Your BGP >>> speakers should be connected together, via direct connection, layer 2 >>> tunnel (VPLS) or via intermediary iBGP speakers. Those iBGP speakers in the >>> middle of your network will route the correct way, based on BGP. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" < <[email protected]> >>> [email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 3, 2016 10:41:52 AM >>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] BGP and OSPF >>> >>> We currently have a /22 with 2 /24 statically routed in each of our >>> providers. We are moving to BGP. >>> >>> What Im still unclear on is how my OSPF network is going to decide on >>> the best path for data to flow externally >>> >>> can somebody give me the helmet version of how this is accomplished >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >
