Reply in-line.
""Peter Van Oene"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Couple comments/questions inserted
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 11/15/2000 at 2:14 AM Rodgers Moore wrote:
>
> >ebgp multihop has nothing to do with load balancing traffic to and from
the
> >Internet, but it has everything to do with load balancing the the bgp
> >connection and update itself.
>
> I would say it may have something to do with this, but certainly not
everything :) It has everything to do with facilitating peering in
situations where a direct connect is not feasible or optimal.
>
>
> >If you have two parallel connections to the same router at your ISP and
you
> >configure two neighbor statements to the ebgp peer router on the
connected
> >networks you'll transfer the bgp table twice, once on each link.
Possibly
> >many megs of wasted bandwidth.
>
> Although I think this might work (configuring two routers to peer with
each other twice), I can't imagine a reason for it. Am I missing something?
Ok, what if the link dies that the bgp connection is configured for? You'll
lose routing for both links and even if the other T1 is up nothing will be
routed.
>
>
> >If you configure one neighbor statement sourced from a loopback in your
> >router going to a loopback interface on the ISP router, you'll have to
have
> >ebgp-multihop configured too, otherwise it won't work. Then turn off
route
> >caching and the bgp table will be sent only once and will be load
balanced
> >accross the two T1's. If one T1 dies, your still in business....
>
> This I'm curious about. I am assuming that we're talking about direct
connect peers using their loop backs. I am unsure about how the traffic
would load balance here. Two static routes might lead to this, but would
certainly not prove effective when one link died. Further, are you saying
that a large, single update will actually be distributed over the two links?
The only way I could see this happening would be with MLPPP over the T's
which would limit this situation to equal type links. Am I missing something
here as well?
>
Yes, you have to have equal cost routes on both routers to the loopback
networks. Two statics in both routers does the trick. Yes, the one large
update will be distributed equally over both links. Nope, MLPPP is not
required. Any configuration will work. It's the equal cost routes that
maked load balancing work. It's easy to forget that routing protocols have
nothing to do with load balancing. It's the routing engine that does load
balancing and any time two (or more) equal routes exist, the engine will
automatically take advantage of them.
Before anyone yells about EIGRP, EIGRP doesn't load balance. It modifies
the metric based on load, which will at some point cause two parallel paths
(equal or not at 0% utilization) to become equal and hence the engine will
take advantage of the two equal paths.
Rodgers Moore
> Thanks!
>
> Pete
>
>
> >
> >Rodgers Moore
> >
> >""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >00d401c04eb9$b6c5b360$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:00d401c04eb9$b6c5b360$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> EBGP multihop has nothing to do with load balancing.
> >>
> >> As for using BGP to control incoming traffic from your ISP, I would say
> >> there is no simple answer here. You will need to do a lot of reading
and
> >> thinking.
> >>
> >> Basssam Halabi, Internet Routing Architectures, is a good place to
start.
> >> www.nanog.org is another.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> >Andy
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:26 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: BGP load balancing
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I want to know that does command ebgp-multihop provide load balancing
over
> >> ATM for a router, also how can I configure ebgp to control incoming
> >traffic
> >> from my ISP
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________
> >> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> _________________________________
> >> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >
> >
> >_________________________________
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
