BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61095t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ? alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61096t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
If Provider 1 is large enough, they should be able to assign you a class C that they do not aggregate when they make their announcements to other providers. I would suggest asking them for one of these, if they want to keep your business they will get it to you one way or the other. Another option would be to ask Provider 2 for a class C out of address space that they DO announce as an aggregate, and announce this class C to Provider 1. In this situation your announcement to Provider 1 would always be more specific and most of your traffic would come through them. ~-Original Message- ~From: Robert Fowler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ~Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:32 AM ~To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] ~ ~ ~Hello groupstudy, ~ ~I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would ~defer this ~question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the ~scenario: ~ ~2 routers running BGP ~Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a ~connection to ISP 2 ~Each receives full routes. ~Each provider has given us a class C address ~Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because ~provider 2 will ~probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) ~ ~ ~The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this ~address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 ~This was checked using various looking glasses. ~ ~What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive ~primarily via ISP ~2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for ~various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ~ISP2, but also ~because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 ~primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in ~is 90% via ISP ~2 and 10% via ISP 1. ~ ~If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my ~AS number to ~ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that ~criteria, but ~rather see the /24 and chooses that route. ~ ~I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed ~to have this ~issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some ~suggestions ~there but that would not work in this case. ~ ~ ~Options not available: ~Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP ~space and traffic ~types ~Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That ~costs money :)) ~ ~ ~Robert ~ ~ ~ ~ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61099t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert This is actually a very common issue that people don't think about until it happens to them. :-) The first thing I'd do would be to contact ISP 1 and see if they can provide any options. They should have the ability to advertise your more-specific route along with their aggregate. The next thing I'd do ishmmm...umm... not sure. If ISP 1 refuses to advertise your /24 I'm not sure I see a great solution to your problem. Perhaps the real-world BGP gurus might have a suggestion. It's too late for you but I have one other suggestion. This is the sort of policy that needs to be researched before you even order a circuit with a provider. They usually state their aggregation policy in their BGP documentation and you should take a look at that before deciding on an ISP. As you can see, their aggregation can cause issues and you need to know up front how flexible they can be. Regards, John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61103t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
can buy and hardware loadbalancer from f5. From: Robert Fowler Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert Greg Owens 202-398-2552 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61106t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Robert, I believe that you are kind of stuck with having ISP1 who filters everything of a /22 and below and ISP 2 filters at the /24. The first criteria is reachability (over all other algorithm criteria ... which are all just tie breakers as far as BGP is concerned). The reachability to your network behind both links is naturally always going to want to traverse ISP 2's link due to the uneven prefix filtering. What we would suggest to customers who had a similar problem is ask ISP 1 to get you a block (justified through ARIN of course) of a /22 (or whatever they will pass through) so that you can load balance traffic over both pipes using that one block. Then, in your justification to ARIN, make sure you detail the fact that you are handing back a /24 from ISP 2 due to the technical pitfall you have encountered and due to the nature of your traffic and business plan. Emphasize that you want to load share (not load balance)traffic over both links. Don't mention anything about ISP 2 going away ... need to know basis ... they don't need to know. Now ... if you get that /22 (or whatever size block) from ISP 1, you can announce the block in halves to both ISPs (eg. /23 to ISP 1 and /23 to ISP 2). Make sure that you know which traffic is most important and have that traverse your most reliable pipe ... then have the rest of the traffic traverse the to be backup pipe (aka ISP 2). Hope any of this helps at all ... Please feel free to e-mail me if you have any other questions. Clay - Original Message - From: Robert Fowler To: Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61107t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Alex, Not at all true ... Sprint (unless this has changed) will filter at the /22 and will make no exceptions. Other providers such as UUNET/WCOM filter at the /24 ... so traffic will prefer UUNET if in the scenario ISP 1 = Sprint and ISP 2 = UUNET. I have first hand experience with this ... clay - Original Message - From: Alex Muhin To: Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ? alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=6t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ? alex Yes, that's correct. If they don't advertise the more-specific prefix along with their aggregate you'll have problems in a multihomed situation such as that described earlier. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61116t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Oh, that's right. I always forget about that solution. :-) Radware and FatPipe have nice solutions to this, as well. We almost bought a box from FatPipe at one point but we decided we had better ways of accomplishing our goals without their hardware. On a side note, they also have one of the most outrageous vendor gift items I've ever seen: boxer shorts that say FatPipe Inside. Good grief If I worked for them I'd never mention that item to a client, especially in mixed company! John Greg Owens 1/15/03 9:06:28 AM can buy and hardware loadbalancer from f5. From: Robert Fowler Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert Greg Owens 202-398-2552 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61117t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
I'm currently advertising a /24 to Sprint and Global Crossing and neither provider aggregates or filters it. Unless, that is, they've been sneaking around changing things behind my back. Clay Auch 1/15/03 9:49:30 AM Alex, Not at all true ... Sprint (unless this has changed) will filter at the /22 and will make no exceptions. Other providers such as UUNET/WCOM filter at the /24 ... so traffic will prefer UUNET if in the scenario ISP 1 = Sprint and ISP 2 = UUNET. I have first hand experience with this ... clay - Original Message - From: Alex Muhin To: Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ? alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61119t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
I am very interested in how Radware and FatPipe solve this issue, can anyone explain? Lance John Neiberger wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Oh, that's right. I always forget about that solution. :-) Radware and FatPipe have nice solutions to this, as well. We almost bought a box from FatPipe at one point but we decided we had better ways of accomplishing our goals without their hardware. On a side note, they also have one of the most outrageous vendor gift items I've ever seen: boxer shorts that say FatPipe Inside. Good grief If I worked for them I'd never mention that item to a client, especially in mixed company! John Greg Owens 1/15/03 9:06:28 AM can buy and hardware loadbalancer from f5. From: Robert Fowler Date: 2003/01/15 Wed AM 09:31:49 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] Hello groupstudy, I've been banging my head against the wall and figured I would defer this question to those of you more learned and experienced. Here is the the scenario: 2 routers running BGP Router 1 has a connection to ISP 1 and router 2 has a connection to ISP 2 Each receives full routes. Each provider has given us a class C address Only the class C from provider 1 is actively used, because provider 2 will probably be dropped eventually(ssshhh don't tell ARIN) The class C is advertised to both ISPs, however ISP 1 aggregates this address space so instead of being 1.1.1.x /24 it's 1.1.x.x /16 This was checked using various looking glasses. What that means is that traffic to my Class C will arrive primarily via ISP 2 because it will see the /24 I advertise though it. That is bad, for various reasons. Mainly because we are charged by usage from ISP2, but also because we are going to upgrade ISP1 to a fractional t3 and use ISP 2 primarily as a backup eventually. Also the traffic coming in is 90% via ISP 2 and 10% via ISP 1. If I remember from my studying so long ago, even prepending my AS number to ISP 2 will not work, becuase it doesn't even make it to that criteria, but rather see the /24 and chooses that route. I searched some newsgroups, but amazingly enough nobody seemed to have this issue. I saw someone who had a larger block than /24 and some suggestions there but that would not work in this case. Options not available: Using the Class C from Carrier 2 to load balance using IP space and traffic types Getting a class C independant of a provider from ARIN. (That costs money :)) Robert Greg Owens 202-398-2552 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61135t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095]
Is this your address space or is it sprint/global crossings address space? John Neiberger wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I'm currently advertising a /24 to Sprint and Global Crossing and neither provider aggregates or filters it. Unless, that is, they've been sneaking around changing things behind my back. Clay Auch 1/15/03 9:49:30 AM Alex, Not at all true ... Sprint (unless this has changed) will filter at the /22 and will make no exceptions. Other providers such as UUNET/WCOM filter at the /24 ... so traffic will prefer UUNET if in the scenario ISP 1 = Sprint and ISP 2 = UUNET. I have first hand experience with this ... clay - Original Message - From: Alex Muhin To: Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: BGP load balancing questions [7:61095] ISP1 should advertise 1.1.1.x/16 AND 1.1.1.x/24 ? alex Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=61133t=61095 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
