Hello Tim,

Thank you for your answer, and my apologies for not making my problem more clear. I was trying to build some understanding of the underlying issues before diving into the actual scenarios we're looking at.

I design crypto products that, for reasons of security, use static routing to route IP traffic over their secure associations (SAs) to their destination. As such, they do not participate in any routing protocols, though they will pass unicast routing protocols between routers in the customer network. Our customers would like to know if they can use their routers to set up fail-over scenarios over the crypto products (and perhaps the ISPs they're connected to). The most common scenarios are 2:2 fail-over (scenario 1) and 1:2 fail-over (scenario 2). I've depicted those in the attached figures in simple setups.

In order to help our customers figure out their options to this regard, we are running some simulation scenarios using Quagga. Our first setup was using OSPF in some simple scenarios (without the crypto units). I agree that it's very easy to create incredibly complex scenarios to rule out SPOF issues, but we were trying to keep it simple for now.

The issues I initially encounter with OSPF (in NBMA mode) are as follows: 1. OSPF assumes that neighbor routers are on the same subnet. I was wondering if I could fix that using virtual links. 2. OSPF does not use a source port in its neighbor configuration. In order to test all routes however, I would need to set up 4 OSPF point-to-point connections (via virtual links?) in the first scenario and 2 in the second. I'm not sure whether that's possible with OSPF or not.

From what I can tell, BGP might support these scenarios better. Is that correct?

I'm familiar with BFD; is this a protocol commonly supported on routers these days such that it could be used for this purpose?

Kind regards,

Pieter Hulshoff
_______________________________________________
Quagga-users mailing list
Quagga-users@lists.quagga.net
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-users

Reply via email to