imho, for equal cost use maximum-paths.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3/iproute/command/reference/ip2_k1g.html#wp1058588 Jeff Chan wrote: > Hi All, > Given multiple, roughly equal upstreams (Sprint, ATT, Level3) > providing full BGP tables to a small ISP, what's the best way to > balance the outbound traffic? The problem is that all else being > equal (path length, local pref, etc.) BGP decides to take the one with > the lowest peering IP address. Given that the upstreams have > many/most of the same customers and peers, the peer with the lowest IP > address seems to win too often, meaning it does too much outbound > compared to the others. > > I asked the same question some time ago and the common practice answer > seemed to be prefer traffic for some other large networks (UUNet, > Qwest, AOL, etc.) over the peers with higher IP address. Is this > still the case? Seems kind of an ugly hack, but it works. > > Are there any other approaches? How about jumbling up or staggering > the local preferences: > > ISP S: > > customers: localpref 120 > peers: localpref 110 > others: localpref 100 > > ISP A: > > customers: localpref 110 > peers: localpref 100 > others: localpref 90 > > ISP L: > > customers: localpref 100 > peers: localpref 90 > others: localpref 80 > > Where S has the highest IP address, A next highest, L lowest. Haven't > tried this; just a thought to try to compensate for the IP address > decision. > > Cheers, > > Jeff C. > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/