Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Paul Stewart]

Hey Faisal …. Lots of really great questions! ;)

 

Route reflectors in BGP configuration are optional but at some point it’ll make 
complete sense depending on the size of the network.

 

I wouldn’t say one is more complicated than the other …. But after stepping 
back from this a bit and thinking about it – OSPF is going to seem 
easier/simpler to set up though…. Would agree with that for sure.

 

As you mentioned, a lot of the responses were Cisco/Juniper related vs Microtik 
and perhaps it is related to network size, traffic levels, budgets, services 
and other factors …. In the world I live in, I see almost zero Microtik’s where 
a lot of folks on this list are surrounded in them.  I would believe that many 
folks on the list primary business is WISP and then there are some folks 
(myself included) where WISP is a small part (but important part) of the 
business.

 

It’s two different ways of skinning the cat but dependent on what you want to 
accomplish, what network size you are working with, MPLS capabilities, if you 
need full Internet tables in parts of the network for downstream customers…   
basically, in my opinion, as your network grows and the services/requirements 
change then you may find moving from the “OSPF model” to the “BGP model” 
necessary … and you may not. :)

 

Thanks,

Paul

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: September 2, 2016 9:07 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

Thanks Paul,

 

So we have established that we can do this via ibgp/route reflectors/ and 
communities/filters to manage and control the route distribution, and we rely 
on loopback ip's to be known by all routers using OSFP (or some other 
underlying dynamic protocol)

 

We started this conversation by a claim that doing so via ibgp is simpler or 
better 

 

After flushing out all the details, it is obvious that 

a) it is a bit of an intricate process, filters and communities have to be 
planned.

b) it requires an in-dept knowledge of BGP, or at least a fair amount of 
comfort level.

c) it requires to follow  best practices.. 

d) and the configuration requires at least two Route Reflectors and at least 
two sessions per router (one to each of the RR).

 

 

and we have not gotten into traffic engineering  (influencing the path over 
one link vs the other).

 

now if we compare this to an OSPF Setup...

 

a) planning and setting up the areas is good to have, most tend not to pay 
attention to it.

b) dealing OSPF properly does require a bit of in depth  knowledge, winging it 
does not (OSFP is much more forgiving ?)

c) for things to work well, it is recommended to follow best practices

d) configuration tends to be simpler 

 

So, would it be better for someone managing lots of routers to spend a bit of 
time learning OSPF intricacies and follow the best practices vs trading this 
for an ibgp configuration ? 

 

I would also like to point out that the folks who responded to the ibgp setup, 
appear to be using Juniper and or Cisco routers.. 

I cannot help in making the observation that folks who are deploying Juniper or 
Cisco or even Brocade, tend to do a lot more on their routers (thus have a 
fewer boxes ) , while those of us who are deploying Mikrotik Routers, tend to 
deploy more in quantity of these (distributing the functions, rather than 
trying to do everything on one or two boxes).

 

Going back to my original question... is this just two different ways of 
skinning the cat, and the choice of one vs the other is simply a matter of 
personal choice... or is one method truly better than the other method ? if 
yes, can someone please share as to why ?

 

Thanks

 

:)

 

 

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 

  _  

From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org <mailto:p...@paulstewart.org> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 8:13:52 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Been on holidays so apologies for posting on what might be older messages…

 

Communities is one way to do it (filter that only accepts certain communities). 
 In the Juniper world  you can limit it simply by which “family” you accept on 
BGP neighbor as well.  Some folks also separate their “Internet routes” from 
their “internal routes” into separate routing tables all together

 

Paul

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Robertson
Sent: August 30, 2016 7:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

Communities.  Lemme know if you need more detail on that.  I'm a little pressed 
for time right now.

On 08/30/2016 03:23 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

I always want more details


On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bruce Robertson <br...@pooh.com> wrote:

> Communities.  Lemme know if you need more detail on that.  I'm a little
> pressed for time right now.
>
>
> On 08/30/2016 03:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
> I have a follow up question in regards to this...
>
> How do you prevent having ebgp routes being sent to your smaller routers
> which are doing ibgp with the Route Reflectors ?
>
> Are you using filters ?  or some there method ?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 11:36:42 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>
> For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking it. Yes,
> it does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers to be the route
> reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided good geographic
> redundancy balanced with being as well-connected as possible to the rest of
> the routers and checked the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting
> is really no more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already
> know this, but the only different between a route reflector and a non-route
> reflector is that at route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of
> not disseminating routes learned from one peer to another peer.
>
> One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes is
> that I don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone areas and
> area-ranges to summarize pools used for things like PPPoE. It's nice that
> more recent versions of MikroTik automate adding the U route of a
> summarized area-range after the first connected route shows up, but with
> BGP, I simply add the prefix to Networks and it's done.
>
> Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having some link
> quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose adjacency (packet
> loss causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some jackass carrier
> providing a circuit that upgrades their platform and they don't read the
> release notes and multicast gets dropped...), I can deploy a small handful
> of static routes to improve stability slightly until I can resolve the
> issue (just a small time saver).
>
> Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it can
> all be done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in my WISP, the
> telco I'm also the network architect/engineer at uses only OSPF as the IGP
> and we have thousands of internal OSPF routes and dozens of routers in the
> backbone area (along with others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely
> stable. I think its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves
> as OSPF issues, but are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition;
> the canary in the coal mine, if you will.
>
>  If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or changing
> from full to down or full to init, you've got some problem with the link.
> Period. OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable in MikroTiks since
> 3.x.
>
> *Jesse DuPont*
>
> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC
>
> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
>
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
> On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...
>
> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?
>
> It can be argued that such a config,
>   a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>   b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>   c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).
>
> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a
>  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are
> available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
>(OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or
> static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix
> advertisements via the network section of OSPF).
>
> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
> different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.
>
> Regards
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: su

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Bruce, 

Thank you for the offer, and Yes, I am very much interested in the details, if 
you can share at your convenience. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:23:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> Communities. Lemme know if you need more detail on that. I'm a little pressed
> for time right now.

> On 08/30/2016 03:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>> I have a follow up question in regards to this...

>> How do you prevent having ebgp routes being sent to your smaller routers 
>> which
>> are doing ibgp with the Route Reflectors ?

>> Are you using filters ? or some there method ?

>> Thanks.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:36:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>> For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking it. Yes, 
>>> it
>>> does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers to be the route
>>> reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided good geographic 
>>> redundancy
>>> balanced with being as well-connected as possible to the rest of the routers
>>> and checked the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no
>>> more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already know this, but 
>>> the
>>> only different between a route reflector and a non-route reflector is that 
>>> at
>>> route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of not disseminating 
>>> routes
>>> learned from one peer to another peer.

>>> One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes is that 
>>> I
>>> don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone areas and area-ranges 
>>> to
>>> summarize pools used for things like PPPoE. It's nice that more recent 
>>> versions
>>> of MikroTik automate adding the U route of a summarized area-range after the
>>> first connected route shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the prefix to
>>> Networks and it's done.

>>> Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having some link
>>> quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose adjacency (packet loss
>>> causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some jackass carrier providing a
>>> circuit that upgrades their platform and they don't read the release notes 
>>> and
>>> multicast gets dropped...), I can deploy a small handful of static routes to
>>> improve stability slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a small time
>>> saver).

>>> Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it can 
>>> all be
>>> done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in my WISP, the telco 
>>> I'm
>>> also the network architect/engineer at uses only OSPF as the IGP and we have
>>> thousands of internal OSPF routes and dozens of routers in the backbone area
>>> (along with others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think
>>> its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as OSPF issues, 
>>> but
>>> are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition; the canary in the 
>>> coal
>>> mine, if you will.

>>>  If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or changing from
>>> full to down or full to init, you've got some problem with the link. Period.
>>> OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable in MikroTiks since 3.x.

>>> Jesse DuPont

>>> Network Architect
>>> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
>>> Celerity Networks LLC

>>> Celerity Broadband LLC
>>> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

>>> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
>>> On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

>>>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

>>>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>>> a) Still depend

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Bruce Robertson]

Communities.  Lemme know if you need more detail on that.  I'm a little 
pressed for time right now.


On 08/30/2016 03:23 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

I have a follow up question in regards to this...

How do you prevent having ebgp routes being sent to your smaller 
routers which are doing ibgp with the Route Reflectors ?


Are you using filters ?  or some there method ?


Thanks.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 11:36:42 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF
weirdness

For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking
it. Yes, it does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add
routers to be the route reflectors - I just chose two routers
which provided good geographic redundancy balanced with being as
well-connected as possible to the rest of the routers and checked
the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no
more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already know
this, but the only different between a route reflector and a
non-route reflector is that at route reflector is allowed to break
the iBGP rule of not disseminating routes learned from one peer to
another peer.

One of the things I really like about using BGP for access
prefixes is that I don't have to mess with filters or using
non-backbone areas and area-ranges to summarize pools used for
things like PPPoE. It's nice that more recent versions of MikroTik
automate adding the U route of a summarized area-range after the
first connected route shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the
prefix to Networks and it's done.

Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having
some link quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose
adjacency (packet loss causing dropped Hello's, for example, or
some jackass carrier providing a circuit that upgrades their
platform and they don't read the release notes and multicast gets
dropped...), I can deploy a small handful of static routes to
improve stability slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a
small time saver).

Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and
it can all be done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP
in my WISP, the telco I'm also the network architect/engineer at
uses only OSPF as the IGP and we have thousands of internal OSPF
routes and dozens of routers in the backbone area (along with
others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think
its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as
OSPF issues, but are really just OSPF reacting to some other
condition; the canary in the coal mine, if you will.

 If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or
changing from full to down or full to init, you've got some
problem with the link. Period. OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has
been stable in MikroTiks since 3.x.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp +
ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP
behavior in a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those
features as they are available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise
connected or static routes, setup all interfaces as passive,
and control prefix advertisements via the network section of
OSPF).

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol)
across different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
*To: *af@afmug

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I have a follow up question in regards to this... 

How do you prevent having ebgp routes being sent to your smaller routers which 
are doing ibgp with the Route Reflectors ? 

Are you using filters ? or some there method ? 

Thanks. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:36:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking it. Yes, it
> does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers to be the route
> reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided good geographic 
> redundancy
> balanced with being as well-connected as possible to the rest of the routers
> and checked the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no
> more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already know this, but the
> only different between a route reflector and a non-route reflector is that at
> route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of not disseminating routes
> learned from one peer to another peer.

> One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes is that I
> don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone areas and area-ranges to
> summarize pools used for things like PPPoE. It's nice that more recent 
> versions
> of MikroTik automate adding the U route of a summarized area-range after the
> first connected route shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the prefix to
> Networks and it's done.

> Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having some link
> quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose adjacency (packet loss
> causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some jackass carrier providing a
> circuit that upgrades their platform and they don't read the release notes and
> multicast gets dropped...), I can deploy a small handful of static routes to
> improve stability slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a small time
> saver).

> Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it can all 
> be
> done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in my WISP, the telco I'm
> also the network architect/engineer at uses only OSPF as the IGP and we have
> thousands of internal OSPF routes and dozens of routers in the backbone area
> (along with others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think
> its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as OSPF issues, 
> but
> are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition; the canary in the coal
> mine, if you will.

>  If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or changing from
> full to down or full to init, you've got some problem with the link. Period.
> OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable in MikroTiks since 3.x.

> Jesse DuPont

> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC

> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
> On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

>> It can be argued that such a config,
>> a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>> b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>> c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors).

>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more
>> granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in 
>> OSPF
>> / Best Practices...
>> (OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
>> routes,
>> setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the
>> network section of OSPF).

>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different
>> mfg. Bgp being the 2nd.

>> Regards

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
>>> management subnets for radios) and "access

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Mike Hammett]

Best explanation I've seen yet. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 5:19:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

But why even go there? OSPF is a *link state* protocol. BGP is designed for 
passing prefixes around *regardless* of the link state. Use each protocol for 
what it was meant for, and happiness will ensue. Do you really want customer 
reachability information propagating throughout your entire network? All you 
need is OSPF propagating link state, which is relatively a much smaller size of 
possibilities. BGP then stays stable, and doesn't even notice the change. What 
if one router has hundreds of customers with unique (non-pool) customers on it? 
OSPF will propagate *all* of these customers on every link state change. BGP 
won't send a single update. 


On 08/26/2016 03:01 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 




>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well. 



Care to elaborate more on this ? 


By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of 
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques 
available to manage that. 


Regards. 


Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -



From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 





As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well. 


On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote: 


I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF 
used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts. 


On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 




So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 


In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ? 


It can be argued that such a config, 
a) Still depends on OSPF functioning. 
b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp) 
c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors). 


If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more 
granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in OSPF 
/ Best Practices... 
(OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static routes, 
setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the 
network section of OSPF). 


OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg. Bgp being the 2nd. 


Regards 


Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -



From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26 , 2016 12:03:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 





Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP. 
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy. 




Jesse DuPont 

Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
Celerity Networks LLC 
Celerity Broadband LLC 
Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc 
Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband 

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote: 



He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks 



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25 , 2016 6:28:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.� All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands. 


On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 




Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools. 
Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 pool). 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

you are touching on something interesting... 

by default, bgp is a slower reacting process, which in your case you are using 
as an advantage, but can also be a disadvantage. 

however by the same token you OSPF is supposed to be faster reacting.. on one 
hand you are expecting the fast reaction of the OSPF to hide underlying (l2) 
issues, but on the other hand you are making the case that BGP is stable.. 

Yes from a routing table change basis that would be true, however if there are 
l2 issues causing ospf to change paths, you would be seeing actual issues on 
the physical path... 

Quiet possible that by the time someone notices or tries to identify it , the 
problem may not be visible. 

it has it's pro's and con's 

Interesting ... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:26:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> More elucidation: This assumes you're using router loopback addresses as your
> next hops. BGP doesn't care how you get to your loopbacks, just so that you
> *can* get to them. If your network is designed with redundant paths to each
> loopback, and the state of those paths is handled by OSPF, BGP will never know
> there was a link state change, and your customers won't drop a packet.
> (Assuming, of course, that OSPF can instantly recognize that a link is down -
> no problem with point-to-point Ethernet-type interfaces, but there are some
> OSPF enhancements that solve that problem for link layers that don't give an
> instant indication of problems.)

> On 08/27/2016 03:19 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:

>> But why even go there? OSPF is a *link state* protocol. BGP is designed for
>> passing prefixes around *regardless* of the link state. Use each protocol for
>> what it was meant for, and happiness will ensue. Do you really want customer
>> reachability information propagating throughout your entire network? All you
>> need is OSPF propagating link state, which is relatively a much smaller size 
>> of
>> possibilities. BGP then stays stable, and doesn't even notice the change. 
>> What
>> if one router has hundreds of customers with unique (non-pool) customers on 
>> it?
>> OSPF will propagate *all* of these customers on every link state change. BGP
>> won't send a single update.

>> On 08/26/2016 03:01 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>> >> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

>>> Care to elaborate more on this ?

>>> By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or 
>>> hundreds of
>>> routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques
>>> available to manage that.

>>> Regards.

>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 26 , 2016 5:23:14 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

>>>> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

>>>>> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT 
>>>>> OSPF used
>>>>> to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

>>>>> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>>>>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

>>>>>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

>>>>>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>>>>> a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>>>>>> b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>>>>>> c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors).

>>>>>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a 
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available 
>>>>>> in OSPF
>>>>>> / Best Practices...
>>>>>> (OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
>>>>>> routes,
>>>>>> setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via 
>>>>>> the

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Bruce Robertson]

More elucidation:  This assumes you're using router loopback addresses 
as your next hops.  BGP doesn't care how you get to your loopbacks, just 
so that you *can* get to them.  If your network is designed with 
redundant paths to each loopback, and the state of those paths is 
handled by OSPF, BGP will never know there was a link state change, and 
your customers won't drop a packet.  (Assuming, of course, that OSPF can 
instantly recognize that a link is down - no problem with point-to-point 
Ethernet-type interfaces, but there are some OSPF enhancements that 
solve that problem for link layers that don't give an instant indication 
of problems.)


On 08/27/2016 03:19 PM, Bruce Robertson wrote:
But why even go there?  OSPF is a *link state* protocol.  BGP is 
designed for passing prefixes around *regardless* of the link state.  
Use each protocol for what it was meant for, and happiness will 
ensue.  Do you really want customer reachability information 
propagating throughout your entire network?  All you need is OSPF 
propagating link state, which is relatively a much smaller size of 
possibilities.  BGP then stays stable, and doesn't even notice the 
change.  What if one router has hundreds of customers with unique 
(non-pool) customers on it?  OSPF will propagate *all* of these 
customers on every link state change.  BGP won't send a single update.


On 08/26/2016 03:01 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

Care to elaborate more on this ?

By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or 
hundreds of routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many 
different techniques available to manage that.


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
    *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF
weirdness

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're
doing. MT OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or
thereabouts.

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp
+ ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP
behavior in a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the
those features as they are available in  OSPF / Best
Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise
connected or static routes, setup all interfaces as
passive, and control prefix advertisements via the
network section of OSPF).

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator
(protocol) across different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 <callto:305%20663%205518> x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <callto:%28305%29663-5518>
Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net




*From: *"Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with
OSPF (and possibly management subnets for radios) and
"access" network prefixes (customer-facing) are
distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route
reflectors and all other routers peer with only these
two; this solves the full mesh and provides redundancy.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Bruce Robertson]

But why even go there?  OSPF is a *link state* protocol.  BGP is 
designed for passing prefixes around *regardless* of the link state.  
Use each protocol for what it was meant for, and happiness will ensue.  
Do you really want customer reachability information propagating 
throughout your entire network?  All you need is OSPF propagating link 
state, which is relatively a much smaller size of possibilities.  BGP 
then stays stable, and doesn't even notice the change.  What if one 
router has hundreds of customers with unique (non-pool) customers on 
it?  OSPF will propagate *all* of these customers on every link state 
change.  BGP won't send a single update.


On 08/26/2016 03:01 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

Care to elaborate more on this ?

By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or 
hundreds of routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many 
different techniques available to manage that.


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
    *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF
weirdness

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're
doing. MT OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or
thereabouts.

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp
+ ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP
behavior in a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the
those features as they are available in  OSPF / Best
Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise
connected or static routes, setup all interfaces as
passive, and control prefix advertisements via the network
section of OSPF).

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator
(protocol) across different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 <callto:305%20663%205518> x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <callto:%28305%29663-5518> Option
2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net




*From: *"Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with
OSPF (and possibly management subnets for radios) and
"access" network prefixes (customer-facing) are
distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route
reflectors and all other routers peer with only these
two; this solves the full mesh and provides redundancy.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback
addresses listed in networks



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm
not sure how only using OSPF for the loopbacks
works.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
<http://www.ics-il.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computin

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Paul Stewart]

 to deploy using this methodology.  For MPLS it came 
down to traffic engineering and protection options to keep it short…. 

 

I would never say this is the correct way to someone … I would always suggest 
people look at what they want to accomplish and what they think they might want 
to do in future and then plan for the “layers of the network” (no pun intended).

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: August 27, 2016 12:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

I keep asking for more because this is a topic I'm extremely interested in. 
Tell me more. Tell me more.  :-)



-
Mike Hammett
 <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>  
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>  
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 
 <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>  
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 
 <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>  
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 




  _  

From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org <mailto:p...@paulstewart.org> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:00:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Yes exactly per my earlier post … everyone wants to jump off the OSPF ship for 
a couple of reasons:

 

-Someone told them it’s very bad to scale it up but failed to define what 
“scale” is referring to

 

-misconfiguration or misunderstanding of OSPF (common)

 

-OS issues (ie. Microtik that’s being talked about a lot)

 

Of course it’s not just about scale … for me, the benefits that BGP brings to 
the table far outweigh the benefits of OSPF .. ie. OSPF tags vs BGP communities

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: August 26, 2016 6:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

>>As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.






Care to elaborate more on this ? 






By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of 
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques 
available to manage that. 






Regards.

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 

  _  

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com <mailto:br...@pooh.com> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF 
used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 

 

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

 

It can be argued that such a config, 

  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.

  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)

  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

 

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a  more 
granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are available in  
OSPF / Best Practices...

   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via 
the network section of OSPF).

 

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

 

Regards

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 <callto:305%20663%205518>  x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <callto:%28305%29663-5518>  Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


  _  


From: "Jesse DuPont"  <mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
<jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP.

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Mike Hammett]

I keep asking for more because this is a topic I'm extremely interested in. 
Tell me more. Tell me more. :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Paul Stewart" <p...@paulstewart.org> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 11:00:51 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 



Yes exactly per my earlier post … everyone wants to jump off the OSPF ship for 
a couple of reasons: 

-Someone told them it’s very bad to scale it up but failed to define what 
“scale” is referring to 

-misconfiguration or misunderstanding of OSPF (common) 

-OS issues (ie. Microtik that’s being talked about a lot) 

Of course it’s not just about scale … for me, the benefits that BGP brings to 
the table far outweigh the benefits of OSPF .. ie. OSPF tags vs BGP communities 




From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: August 26, 2016 6:02 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 



>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well. 





Care to elaborate more on this ? 





By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of 
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques 
available to manage that. 





Regards. 



Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 


- Original Message -




From: "Bruce Robertson" < br...@pooh.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 





As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well. 

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote: 


I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF 
used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts. 

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 




So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 



In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ? 



It can be argued that such a config, 

a) Still depends on OSPF functioning. 

b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp) 

c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors). 



If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more 
granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in OSPF 
/ Best Practices... 

(OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static routes, 
setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the 
network section of OSPF). 



OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg. Bgp being the 2nd. 



Regards 



Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 


- Original Message -




From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26 , 2016 12:03:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 





Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP. 
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy. 


Jesse DuPont 

Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
Celerity Networks LLC 
Celerity Broadband LLC 
Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc 
Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband 


On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote: 


He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks 



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -


From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, August 25 , 2016 6:28:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} 
routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.� All 
your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm misunderstanding 
the problem, but my point still stands. 

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote: 



Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I started to 
renumber some PPPoE pools. 
Customer gets 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Paul Stewart]

Yes exactly per my earlier post … everyone wants to jump off the OSPF ship for 
a couple of reasons:

 

-Someone told them it’s very bad to scale it up but failed to define what 
“scale” is referring to

 

-misconfiguration or misunderstanding of OSPF (common)

 

-OS issues (ie. Microtik that’s being talked about a lot)

 

Of course it’s not just about scale … for me, the benefits that BGP brings to 
the table far outweigh the benefits of OSPF .. ie. OSPF tags vs BGP communities

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: August 26, 2016 6:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 

>>As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.





Care to elaborate more on this ? 





By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of 
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques 
available to manage that. 





Regards.

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
<mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 

  _  

From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com <mailto:br...@pooh.com> >
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF 
used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 

 

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

 

It can be argued that such a config, 

  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.

  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)

  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

 

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a  more 
granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are available in  
OSPF / Best Practices...

   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via 
the network section of OSPF).

 

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

 

Regards

 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 <callto:305%20663%205518>  x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <callto:(305)663-5518>  Option 2 or Email: 
supp...@snappytelecom.net <mailto:supp...@snappytelecom.net> 

 


  _  


From: "Jesse DuPont"  <mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
<jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy.

Jesse DuPont

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net <mailto:jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband


On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks

 

 

On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF for 
the loopbacks works.



-
Mike Hammett
 <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>  
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>  
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 
 <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>  
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 
 <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>  
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 





  _  


From: "Bruce Robertson"  <mailto:br...@pooh.com> <br...@pooh.com>
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons why 
you use

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Mike Hammett]

Bruce, do you have anything to add regarding using BGP instead of OSPF to 
distribute your access network? 

What I got out of that mainly is that you don't have to deal with summarization 
if you're just using BGP to do it anyway. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:36:42 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 

For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking it. Yes, it 
does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers to be the route 
reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided good geographic redundancy 
balanced with being as well-connected as possible to the rest of the routers 
and checked the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no 
more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already know this, but the 
only different between a route reflector and a non-route reflector is that at 
route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of not disseminating routes 
learned from one peer to another peer. 

One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes is that I 
don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone areas and area-ranges to 
summarize pools used for things like PPPoE. It's nice that more recent versions 
of MikroTik automate adding the U route of a summarized area-range after the 
first connected route shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the prefix to 
Networks and it's done. 

Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having some link 
quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose adjacency (packet loss 
causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some jackass carrier providing a 
circuit that upgrades their platform and they don't read the release notes and 
multicast gets dropped...), I can deploy a small handful of static routes to 
improve stability slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a small time 
saver). 

Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it can all be 
done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in my WISP, the telco I'm 
also the network architect/engineer at uses only OSPF as the IGP and we have 
thousands of internal OSPF routes and dozens of routers in the backbone area 
(along with others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think 
its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as OSPF issues, but 
are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition; the canary in the coal 
mine, if you will. 

 If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or changing from 
full to down or full to init, you've got some problem with the link. Period. 
OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable in MikroTiks since 3.x. 




Jesse DuPont 

Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
Celerity Networks LLC 
Celerity Broadband LLC 
Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc 
Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband 

On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: 




So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 


In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ? 


It can be argued that such a config, 
a) Still depends on OSPF functioning. 
b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp) 
c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors). 


If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more 
granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in OSPF 
/ Best Practices... 
(OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static routes, 
setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the 
network section of OSPF). 


OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg. Bgp being the 2nd. 


Regards 


Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -



From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness 





Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly 
management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing) 
are distributed via iBGP. 
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other 
routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides 
redundancy. 




Jesse DuPont 

Network Architect 
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net 
Celerity Networks LLC 
Celerity Broadband LLC 
Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc 
Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband 

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Mi

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Jessie, 

I appreciate the candid and detailed answer. I was trying to separate the 
technical facts from personal preference. I often say that we all design and 
manage our networks based on our fears and how we found a solution around a 
problem. I am not picking on anyone, and myself is included in the group. 
Sometimes the root cause of the issue that we see is due to some poor 
implementation or poor choice many layers deep. I like to dive down into the 
details to try to analyze it. 

Thank you for sharing. 

FWIW, are are also running iBGP/eBGP + Route Reflector,in our Data Center 
network (multiple Data Centers, distributed Edge), and OSFP in the rest of the 
network, including the Wireless POP's. 

We did a lot of PPPoe for our DSL Subs, and it is almost done .. (We were using 
Redback Routers for this). 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:36:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking it. Yes, it
> does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers to be the route
> reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided good geographic 
> redundancy
> balanced with being as well-connected as possible to the rest of the routers
> and checked the "route reflect to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no
> more intensive than just BGP peering; probably most already know this, but the
> only different between a route reflector and a non-route reflector is that at
> route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of not disseminating routes
> learned from one peer to another peer.

> One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes is that I
> don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone areas and area-ranges to
> summarize pools used for things like PPPoE. It's nice that more recent 
> versions
> of MikroTik automate adding the U route of a summarized area-range after the
> first connected route shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the prefix to
> Networks and it's done.

> Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having some link
> quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose adjacency (packet loss
> causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some jackass carrier providing a
> circuit that upgrades their platform and they don't read the release notes and
> multicast gets dropped...), I can deploy a small handful of static routes to
> improve stability slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a small time
> saver).

> Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it can all 
> be
> done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in my WISP, the telco I'm
> also the network architect/engineer at uses only OSPF as the IGP and we have
> thousands of internal OSPF routes and dozens of routers in the backbone area
> (along with others in non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think
> its easy to misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as OSPF issues, 
> but
> are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition; the canary in the coal
> mine, if you will.

>  If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or changing from
> full to down or full to init, you've got some problem with the link. Period.
> OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable in MikroTiks since 3.x.

> Jesse DuPont

> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC

> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
> On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

>> It can be argued that such a config,
>> a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>> b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>> c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors).

>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more
>> granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in 
>> OSPF
>> / Best Practices...
>> (OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
>> routes,
>> setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the
>> network section of OSPF).

>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different
>> mfg. Bgp being the 2nd.

>> Regards

>> Fa

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Jesse DuPont]

  
  
For me, it was a bit of an experiment, but I have ended up liking
it. Yes, it does add some overhead, but I didn't have to add routers
to be the route reflectors - I just chose two routers which provided
good geographic redundancy balanced with being as well-connected as
possible to the rest of the routers and checked the "route reflect
to peers" box. Route reflecting is really no more intensive than
just BGP peering; probably most already know this, but the only
different between a route reflector and a non-route reflector is
that at route reflector is allowed to break the iBGP rule of not
disseminating routes learned from one peer to another peer.

One of the things I really like about using BGP for access prefixes
is that I don't have to mess with filters or using non-backbone
areas and area-ranges to summarize pools used for things like PPPoE.
It's nice that more recent versions of MikroTik automate adding the
U route of a summarized area-range after the first connected route
shows up, but with BGP, I simply add the prefix to Networks and it's
done.

Another advantage, albeit a "band-aid" one is that if I'm having
some link quality issue that is ultimately causing OSPF to lose
adjacency (packet loss causing dropped Hello's, for example, or some
jackass carrier providing a circuit that upgrades their platform and
they don't read the release notes and multicast gets dropped...), I
can deploy a small handful of static routes to improve stability
slightly until I can resolve the issue (just a small time saver).

Obviously, none of this functionality REQUIRES the use of BGP and it
can all be done using OSPF. Indeed, while I'm using OSPF + iBGP in
my WISP, the telco I'm also the network architect/engineer at uses
only OSPF as the IGP and we have thousands of internal OSPF routes
and dozens of routers in the backbone area (along with others in
non-backbone areas) and it's extremely stable. I think its easy to
misinterpret problems which manifest themselves as OSPF issues, but
are really just OSPF reacting to some other condition; the canary in
the coal mine, if you will.

 If you're having issues with OSPF losing adjacencies or
changing from full to down or full to init, you've got some problem
with the link. Period. OSPF is not the problem. OSPF has been stable
in MikroTiks since 3.x.


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 8/26/16 1:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz
  wrote:


  
So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 


In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp +
  ibgp) ?


It can be argued that such a config, 
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it
  (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).


If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP
  behavior in a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those
  features as they are available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise
  connected or static routes, setup all interfaces as passive,
  and control prefix advertisements via the network section of
  OSPF).


OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator
  (protocol) across different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.


Regards


Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet & Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
  
  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
  supp...@snappytelecom.net




  From: "Jesse DuPont"

To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
  


  Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with
OSPF (and possibly management subnets for radios) and
"access" network prefixes (customer-facing) are distributed
via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors
and all other routers peer with only these two; this solves
the full mesh and 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[David Milholen]

I have 38 and on our newest deployments we have done this and yes each 
time I learn how to do a little enhancement on the overall routing.


It also seems to be great for dual stacking



On 8/26/2016 5:18 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


Of course not, but if you learn these designs and techniques you will 
implement things correctly the first time.



On Aug 26, 2016 5:16 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
> wrote:


Lol I don't think my 25 router setup is large scale


On Aug 26, 2016 5:12 PM, "Josh Reynolds" > wrote:

Deploying OSPF in a Large Scale Network

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=http://andrei.clubcisco.ro/cursuri/4prc/scaling/BRKRST-2310.pdf=0ahUKEwiroJ2ujODOAhVsAsAKHRx7Dl4QFggtMAQ=AFQjCNEJn-_gYdPmCsRFvbE4AOdnVEQhgg=2fJL8eTFDdjNdc3TQ6EGGg




On Aug 26, 2016 5:07 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm"
>
wrote:

Ironically I was coming in to ask about ospf and ibgp. I
just figured out how to use ospf filters, so I have to
confess I have a slight chub. But it turned out the way
ospf was propagating pathways for some static space was
causing a 100mb link to run at 10. We pulled the trigger
on the bgp project for our provider circuits so that's
happening, but when it does my cobblefuckery will end up
wreaking havoc with ospf. What is the benefit of ospf over
ibgp for internal distribution. We run the same routers
everywhere so if the edge can take whole routes, shouldn't
every site?


On Aug 26, 2016 4:23 PM, "Bruce Robertson" > wrote:

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what
you're doing. MT OSPF used to act really stupid until
ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config
(osfp + ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of
it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage
OSFP behavior in a  more granular fashion,  Why not
use the those features as they are available in
 OSPF / Best Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't
advertise connected or static routes, setup all
interfaces as passive, and control prefix
advertisements via the network section of OSPF).

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator
(protocol) across different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 
Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net





*From: *"Jesse DuPont"


*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed
with OSPF (and possibly management subnets for
radios) and "access" network prefixes
(customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route
reflectors and all other routers peer with only
these two; this solves the full mesh and
provides redundancy.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Josh Reynolds]

Of course not, but if you learn these designs and techniques you will
implement things correctly the first time.

On Aug 26, 2016 5:16 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

> Lol I don't think my 25 router setup is large scale
>
> On Aug 26, 2016 5:12 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:
>
>> Deploying OSPF in a Large Scale Network
>> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=http://
>> andrei.clubcisco.ro/cursuri/4prc/scaling/BRKRST-2310.pdf
>> =0ahUKEwiroJ2ujODOAhVsAsAKHRx7Dl4QFggtMAQ=AFQjCNEJn-_gYd
>> PmCsRFvbE4AOdnVEQhgg=2fJL8eTFDdjNdc3TQ6EGGg
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016 5:07 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ironically I was coming in to ask about ospf and ibgp. I just figured
>>> out how to use ospf filters, so I have to confess I have a slight chub. But
>>> it turned out the way ospf was propagating pathways for some static space
>>> was causing a 100mb link to run at 10. We pulled the trigger on the bgp
>>> project for our provider circuits so that's happening, but when it does my
>>> cobblefuckery will end up wreaking havoc with ospf. What is the benefit of
>>> ospf over ibgp for internal distribution. We run the same routers
>>> everywhere so if the edge can take whole routes, shouldn't every site?
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2016 4:23 PM, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:
>>>
 As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

 On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

 I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT
 OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

 On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

 So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

 In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

 It can be argued that such a config,
   a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
   b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
   c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

 If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a
  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are
 available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
(OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or
 static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix
 advertisements via the network section of OSPF).

 OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
 different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.

 Regards

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet & Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, FL 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

 --

 *From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and
 possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes
 (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
 I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all
 other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and
 provides redundancy.

 *Jesse DuPont*

 Network Architect
 email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
 Celerity Networks LLC

 Celerity Broadband LLC
 Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

 Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
 On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

 He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in
 networks



 On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using
 OSPF for the loopbacks works.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Bruce Robertson"  
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

 I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many
 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Lol I don't think my 25 router setup is large scale

On Aug 26, 2016 5:12 PM, "Josh Reynolds"  wrote:

> Deploying OSPF in a Large Scale Network
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=http://
> andrei.clubcisco.ro/cursuri/4prc/scaling/BRKRST-2310.pdf=
> 0ahUKEwiroJ2ujODOAhVsAsAKHRx7Dl4QFggtMAQ=AFQjCNEJn-_
> gYdPmCsRFvbE4AOdnVEQhgg=2fJL8eTFDdjNdc3TQ6EGGg
>
> On Aug 26, 2016 5:07 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ironically I was coming in to ask about ospf and ibgp. I just figured out
>> how to use ospf filters, so I have to confess I have a slight chub. But it
>> turned out the way ospf was propagating pathways for some static space was
>> causing a 100mb link to run at 10. We pulled the trigger on the bgp project
>> for our provider circuits so that's happening, but when it does my
>> cobblefuckery will end up wreaking havoc with ospf. What is the benefit of
>> ospf over ibgp for internal distribution. We run the same routers
>> everywhere so if the edge can take whole routes, shouldn't every site?
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016 4:23 PM, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:
>>
>>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.
>>>
>>> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>>
>>> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT
>>> OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.
>>>
>>> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>>>
>>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...
>>>
>>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?
>>>
>>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>>   a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>>>   b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>>>   c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).
>>>
>>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a
>>>  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are
>>> available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
>>>(OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or
>>> static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix
>>> advertisements via the network section of OSPF).
>>>
>>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
>>> different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>>
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
>>> 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>>
>>> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
>>> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes
>>> (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
>>> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all
>>> other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and
>>> provides redundancy.
>>>
>>> *Jesse DuPont*
>>>
>>> Network Architect
>>> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
>>> Celerity Networks LLC
>>>
>>> Celerity Broadband LLC
>>> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
>>>
>>> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
>>> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>>>
>>> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in
>>> networks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using
>>> OSPF for the loopbacks works.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Bruce Robertson"  
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>>
>>> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons
>>> why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets,
>>> anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback
>>> addresses.� All your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if
>>> I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.
>>>
>>> On 08/25/2016 10:22 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Josh Reynolds]

Deploying OSPF in a Large Scale Network
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t=web=j=http://andrei.clubcisco.ro/cursuri/4prc/scaling/BRKRST-2310.pdf=0ahUKEwiroJ2ujODOAhVsAsAKHRx7Dl4QFggtMAQ=AFQjCNEJn-_gYdPmCsRFvbE4AOdnVEQhgg=2fJL8eTFDdjNdc3TQ6EGGg

On Aug 26, 2016 5:07 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
wrote:

> Ironically I was coming in to ask about ospf and ibgp. I just figured out
> how to use ospf filters, so I have to confess I have a slight chub. But it
> turned out the way ospf was propagating pathways for some static space was
> causing a 100mb link to run at 10. We pulled the trigger on the bgp project
> for our provider circuits so that's happening, but when it does my
> cobblefuckery will end up wreaking havoc with ospf. What is the benefit of
> ospf over ibgp for internal distribution. We run the same routers
> everywhere so if the edge can take whole routes, shouldn't every site?
>
> On Aug 26, 2016 4:23 PM, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:
>
>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.
>>
>> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>>
>> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT
>> OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.
>>
>> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>>
>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...
>>
>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?
>>
>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>   a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>>   b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>>   c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).
>>
>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a
>>  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are
>> available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
>>(OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or
>> static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix
>> advertisements via the network section of OSPF).
>>
>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
>> different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
>> 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>
>> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
>> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes
>> (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
>> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other
>> routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides
>> redundancy.
>>
>> *Jesse DuPont*
>>
>> Network Architect
>> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
>> Celerity Networks LLC
>>
>> Celerity Broadband LLC
>> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
>>
>> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
>> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>>
>> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in
>> networks
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF
>> for the loopbacks works.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Bruce Robertson"  
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>
>> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons
>> why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets,
>> anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback
>> addresses.� All your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if
>> I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.
>>
>> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I
>> started to renumber some PPPoE pools.
>>
>> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27
>> pool). Customer can�t surf and I can�t 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Ironically I was coming in to ask about ospf and ibgp. I just figured out
how to use ospf filters, so I have to confess I have a slight chub. But it
turned out the way ospf was propagating pathways for some static space was
causing a 100mb link to run at 10. We pulled the trigger on the bgp project
for our provider circuits so that's happening, but when it does my
cobblefuckery will end up wreaking havoc with ospf. What is the benefit of
ospf over ibgp for internal distribution. We run the same routers
everywhere so if the edge can take whole routes, shouldn't every site?

On Aug 26, 2016 4:23 PM, "Bruce Robertson"  wrote:

> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.
>
> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>
> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT
> OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.
>
> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...
>
> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?
>
> It can be argued that such a config,
>   a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>   b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>   c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).
>
> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a
>  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are
> available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
>(OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or
> static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix
> advertisements via the network section of OSPF).
>
> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
> different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.
>
> Regards
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
> 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>
> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes
> (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other
> routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides
> redundancy.
>
> *Jesse DuPont*
>
> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC
>
> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
>
> Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>
> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in
> networks
>
>
>
> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF
> for the loopbacks works.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Bruce Robertson"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>
> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons
> why you use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets,
> anything} routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback
> addresses.� All your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if
> I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still stands.
>
> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I
> started to renumber some PPPoE pools.
>
> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27
> pool). Customer can�t surf and I can�t ping them from my office:
>
> �
>
> [office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router] � [Ross Router] �
> [Hayti Router] � [customer]
>
> �
>
> A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting
> any type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
> Unreachable/Dest unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office router.
>
> A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie
> router 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well. 

Care to elaborate more on this ? 

By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of 
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques 
available to manage that. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:

>> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF 
>> used
>> to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.

>> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

>>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

>>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>> a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>>> b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>>> c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors).

>>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more
>>> granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in 
>>> OSPF
>>> / Best Practices...
>>> (OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static 
>>> routes,
>>> setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the
>>> network section of OSPF).

>>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across 
>>> different
>>> mfg. Bgp being the 2nd.

>>> Regards

>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>>> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 26 , 2016 12:03:58 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>>> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
>>>> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes 
>>>> (customer-facing)
>>>> are distributed via iBGP.
>>>> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other
>>>> routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides
>>>> redundancy.

>>>> Jesse DuPont

>>>> Network Architect
>>>> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
>>>> Celerity Networks LLC

>>>> Celerity Broadband LLC
>>>> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

>>>> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
>>>> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

>>>>> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in 
>>>>> networks

>>>>> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

>>>>>> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using 
>>>>>> OSPF for
>>>>>> the loopbacks works.

>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>>>>>> The Brothers WISP

>>>>>> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 25 , 2016 6:28:43 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>>>>> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons 
>>>>>> why you
>>>>>> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
>>>>>> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.� 
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm 
>>>>>> misunderstanding
>>>>>> the problem, but my point still stands.

>>>>>> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

>>>>>>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I 
>>>>>>> started to
>>>>>>> r

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Bruce Robertson]

As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.

On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:
I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT 
OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.


On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in 
a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are 
available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or 
static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix 
advertisements via the network section of OSPF).


OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across 
different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.


Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and
possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network
prefixes (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and
all other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full
mesh and provides redundancy.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses
listed in networks



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how
only using OSPF for the loopbacks works.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 






*From: *"Bruce Robertson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one
of many reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer,
dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} routes, and use
OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.�
All your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My
apologies if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my
point still stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my
network since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32
(from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer can�t surf and I
can�t ping them from my office:

�

[office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router]
� [Ross Router] � [Hayti Router] � [customer]

�

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router
but I am not getting any type of ICMP response from
the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office
router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again
dies at the Bernie router with no type of response.

�

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows
a valid route pointing to the Braggcity 

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[George Skorup]

I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT 
OSPF used to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.


On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

So just for the sake of a technical discussion...

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?

It can be argued that such a config,
  a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
  b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
  c) Requires additional  Routers (route reflectors).

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in 
a  more granular fashion,  Why not use the those features as they are 
available in  OSPF / Best Practices...
   (OSFP  best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or 
static routes, setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix 
advertisements via the network section of OSPF).


OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across 
different mfg.  Bgp being the 2nd.


Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net



*From: *"Jesse DuPont" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and
possibly management subnets for radios) and "access" network
prefixes (customer-facing) are distributed via iBGP.
I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and
all other routers peer with only these two; this solves the full
mesh and provides redundancy.

*Jesse DuPont*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses
listed in networks



On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how
only using OSPF for the loopbacks works.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 






*From: *"Bruce Robertson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one
of many reasons why you use iBGP to distribute {customer,
dynamic pool, server subnets, anything} routes, and use
OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.�
All your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies
if I'm misunderstanding the problem, but my point still
stands.

On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my
network since I started to renumber some PPPoE pools.

Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32
(from x.x.x.192/27 pool). Customer can�t surf and I
can�t ping them from my office:

�

[office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router]
� [Ross Router] � [Hayti Router] � [customer]

�

A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router
but I am not getting any type of ICMP response from
the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host Unreachable/Dest
unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office
router.

A traceroute from the Customer to the office again
dies at the Bernie router with no type of response.

�

Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows
a valid route pointing to the Braggcity router. It is
also in the OSPF LSA�s.

--

Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

[Faisal Imtiaz]

So just for the sake of a technical discussion... 

In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ? 

It can be argued that such a config, 
a) Still depends on OSPF functioning. 
b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp) 
c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors). 

If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more 
granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in OSPF 
/ Best Practices... 
(OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static routes, 
setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the 
network section of OSPF). 

OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across different 
mfg. Bgp being the 2nd. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Jesse DuPont" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:03:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes (customer-facing)
> are distributed via iBGP.
> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other
> routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides
> redundancy.

> Jesse DuPont

> Network Architect
> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
> Celerity Networks LLC

> Celerity Broadband LLC
> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc

> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:

>> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in networks

>> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

>>> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using OSPF 
>>> for
>>> the loopbacks works.

>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>>> The Brothers WISP

>>> From: "Bruce Robertson" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 6:28:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness

>>> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons 
>>> why you
>>> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
>>> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.� All
>>> your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm 
>>> misunderstanding
>>> the problem, but my point still stands.

>>> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

 Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I 
 started to
 renumber some PPPoE pools.

 Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from x.x.x.192/27 
 pool).
 Customer can�t surf and I can�t ping them from my office:

 �

 [office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router] � [Ross Router] � 
 [Hayti
 Router] � [customer]

 �

 A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not getting 
 any
 type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host 
 Unreachable/Dest
 unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office router.

 A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie 
 router
 with no type of response.

 �

 Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route 
 pointing to
 the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA�s.

 --

 Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.

 �

 --

 Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the 
 service
 starts working again.

 �

 --

 �

 Now � even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the routing 
 table
 � traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting blackholed.. I
 should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.

 �

 This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there is no
 route to it:

 C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206

 �

 Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:

 Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.

 �

 Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:

 ��� Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),

 �

 C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206

 �

 Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]

 over a maximum of 30 hops:

 �

 � 1���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 7 ms� z.z.z.z

 � 2���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 6 ms� 
 y.bpsnetworks.com
 [y.y.y.1]

 � 3� y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] �reports: Destination host