Pekka Savola schrieb: Hi,
> Strictly speaking, you don't need full tables from upstream. For > example, a default route or default + some more specifics is also OK. of course, yes. But for a little traffic engineering we prefere full-tables here :-) > In your simple setup, you don't necessarily need IGP, because the only > thing the other box needs to know is where is the other router's > loopback address. The rest can be propagated in iBGP. You can Even if I don't do VRRP for every single customer? What happens if traffic transits the 2nd router and it does not know that the subnet is added on the 1st router in vlan 200? I guess in this case, traffic will be discarded. > I guess there are two main ways to build a redundant router/switch > solution like this: > > R1-----R2 > | | > SW1---SW2 > > or: > > R1\ /R2 > | X | > | / \| > SW1 SW2 > > in the latter diagram you can also add a direct link between routers > and/or switches if you want but you can also live without it. I guess the first solution is what we want. I guess the direct link between R1 and R2 is just a logical link for iBGP and maybe IGP? > The former is simpler and is usually sufficient when the switches and > routers are located in the same premises (i.e. you don't need to be too > worried about fiber breaks etc. -- this assumes that if a link between > switch and router fails, the router sees the link down event). In this > scenario, you may want to use two links between SW1 and SW2 (and run > LACP or some such to bundle them up unless you just use STP) just in > case a switch port fails. Spanning tree is not required in this setup. Great, thanks for your detailled reply! Best regards, Jeff _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
