Richcard,
I guess it could not be anything but that. But seems to me this has little
to do with BGP.
JP
""Richard Chang"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is indeed an interesting question although I never heard that it is
> being done...
>
> If I were to take a guess, it would be to manipulate traffic so that
> upstreams A would always be preferred. (append extra AS paths and a
default
> route should do the trick). Then there has to be some kind of network
> management tools to send out alerts when the accumulated traffic for
> upstream A reaches 300G. At that point, you can tell the router to take B
as
> preferred while put A as backup.
>
> Your upstream provider might have a traffic monitoring web page that you
can
> log into to view the same results.
>
> Any better ideas?
>
> Richard
>
> ""[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)"" wrote in
> message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here's a weird BGP question I got today. Take a standard
> > dual-homed site using BGP to connect to two upstreams. Is it possible
> > to get BGP to route the first 300G of traffic per month to upstream A
> > and the rest to upstream B? I'm told it's done all the time, but
> > somehow I doubt it.
> >
> > Before the famous question gets asked, the problem being solved is
> > cost. The idea is to not exceed the minimum cost of upstream A.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10426&t=10384
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
