Hi,
What IP space are using? Is it provider independent space? presuming PI. I would be tempted to lose the default gateway, and BGP to the first and second links. Then for 2, use a local preference in quagga BGP to send the outbound traffic this way. Then add AS-prepend to avoid inbound traffic on this connection. You will need a higher local preference on 3, to avoid traffic going down 2. So 1. unchanged except routes coming over BGP 2, routes will come on BGP but you will pick and choose what you send out this way. 3, peer, so should have fewer BGP hops. And set a higher local preference. Actually, i'm not sure this will work or is the right way. You might still need policy routes. But a good way to think. The reason for doing it this way is that you get a better route. If provider one loses some routes that provider 2 happens to still have, then stuff still works. On 11/01/18 09:30, Stephan Viljoen wrote: > Hi There, > > I'm fairly new to working with dynamic routing protocols and would > appreciate it if someone is willing to give me some advice with the > following scenario. > > I've configured an edge router with three wan connection on it. > > 1: The first link goes to my primary upstream provider which acts as > my default gw .. nothing special here. > 2: The second link goes to a secondary upstream provider where I'm > using policy based routes for only certain internal pre-fixes . > 3: The third link is where things gets interesting :) This is a local > peering connection with other service providers using BGP .. so I've > configured Zebra / quagga with BGP which works pretty good. > > So my question is , is it possible to give the routes received via BGP > priority over the policy based routes ? So for instance , if a > customer comes from an ip-prefix with a policy based route in place is > it possible to follow > the BGP route first before following the policy set for it ? I did > find a cumbersome way around the problem but I'm pretty sure this is > an unnecessary step. I ended up configuring a second based policy for > all those pre-fixes > with a lower priority for the BGP routes . So if a customer wants to > access content via the peering link it will try and route there first > following the lower priority route but this comes with it's own > problems like when a peering host is down > it's still going to try and follow the route configured via policy > based which kinda makes the whole idea behind using BGP useless. > > Small example. > > 500: from 10.0.243.0/24 lookup PEERING : This I feel is > unnecessary and would like to configure the incoming BGP pre-fixes > with a higher priority so this route will get followed first instead > of creating a policy based route for each of the incoming pre-fixes > which renders the BGP setup useless. > ip route list table PEERING > 168.167.252.0/24 via 192.168.179.40 dev enp2s0f1.555 > 168.167.253.0/24 via 192.168.179.40 dev enp2s0f1.555 > 168.167.254.0/24 via 192.168.179.40 dev enp2s0f1.555 > 168.167.255.0/24 via 192.168.179.40 dev enp2s0f1.555 > > 510: from 10.0.243.0/24 lookup UPSTREAM2 > default via 41.191.x.x dev enp2s0f0.210 : Gateway to second upstream; > > I really hope I'm making some sense here. > > Thanks in advance, > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-users mailing list > Quagga-users@lists.quagga.net > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-users _______________________________________________ Quagga-users mailing list Quagga-users@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-users
