The first thing that should be getting defined here is not the
particular technologies and products to define, but what the routing
policy should be, what is meant by multihoming, what the goals and
budget are, etc. Technology choices follow that.
BGP does not equate to multihoming. Multihoming itself is a
technical architectural matter, subordinate to the larger business
requirements of availability, performance, and budget. Depending on
what you are trying to accomplish, it may be necessary to employ
multiple technologies at multiple layers to meet those requirements:
TCP load distribution within server farms
RAID mirroring within server farms, with hot failover
DNS redistribution and/or intelligent tunneling among multiple
server farms
Multihomed routing, both BGP and IGP
Multilinking at data link and below (MLPPP, FastEtherChannel, SONET, etc.)
Local loop diversity (e.g., wireless and wired)
>Terminating 2 ISP links on the same router will not require BGP. Just use
>floating static default routes and load balance out the two links. If you
>own your own AS (public AS), then use BGP for advertisement only.
>
>Vince
>
>
>Oleh Hrynchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Larry Lamb wrote:
>> >
>> > Well what type of router are you looking to deploy? This will
>significantly
>> > influence your decision on what type of routing/connectivity that you'll
>> > use. Full BGP tables can chew up a lot of memory. Looking a the
>Mae-East
>> > Looking Glass at Digex, they're using almost 30MB. That's going to
>require
>> > a router with 64MB more like 128MB of memory.
>>
>> second is true.
>> 64 Mb isn't enough already since several months ago.
>>
>> > A lot of this type of
>> > configuration will be covered in Internet Routing Architectures by
>Halabi.
>> > It's a Cisco Press title.
>>
>>
>> Generally, I would want to say that answer for the question needs real
>knowledge
>> about several internetworking area.
>> What about propagating of [sub]networks? Whom and what?
>> What about negotiating with both ISP about policy routing and other staff?
>> (I have some experience with working in a ISP as system engineer and can
>say
>> that it isn't so easy)
>>
>>
>> So, resume is (IMHO): theoretically it is possible of course.
>> But in practice.... let's say, it is not easy so far...
>>
>>
>>
>> CHEERS, ;-)
>>
>> OLEH
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "Atul Kumar Udupi" wrote in message <97o0uf$pmu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >can u give me some more info please
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >"Larry Lamb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >97o0hs$p33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:97o0hs$p33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> Yep, you can do a lot of different things with routing as well
>depending
>> > >on
>> > >> the memory available, etc. Full BGP from both, full BGP from one
>with a
>> > >> floating static route, etc.
>> > >>
>> > >> "Atul Kumar Udupi" wrote in message <97nsnb$gr8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >> >Greetings,
>> > >> > Hello All I would like to know , Is there any way to terminate
>2
>> > >ISP's
>> > >> >on a same cisco router and use them as a redundant link.
> > > >> >
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
