weird BGP question [7:10384]
Here's a weird BGP question I got today. Take a standard dual-homed site using BGP to connect to two upstreams. Is it possible to get BGP to route the first 300G of traffic per month to upstream A and the rest to upstream B? I'm told it's done all the time, but somehow I doubt it. Before the famous question gets asked, the problem being solved is cost. The idea is to not exceed the minimum cost of upstream A. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10384&t=10384 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: weird BGP question [7:10384]
This is indeed an interesting question although I never heard that it is being done... If I were to take a guess, it would be to manipulate traffic so that upstreams A would always be preferred. (append extra AS paths and a default route should do the trick). Then there has to be some kind of network management tools to send out alerts when the accumulated traffic for upstream A reaches 300G. At that point, you can tell the router to take B as preferred while put A as backup. Your upstream provider might have a traffic monitoring web page that you can log into to view the same results. Any better ideas? Richard ""[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Here's a weird BGP question I got today. Take a standard > dual-homed site using BGP to connect to two upstreams. Is it possible > to get BGP to route the first 300G of traffic per month to upstream A > and the rest to upstream B? I'm told it's done all the time, but > somehow I doubt it. > > Before the famous question gets asked, the problem being solved is > cost. The idea is to not exceed the minimum cost of upstream A. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10424&t=10384 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: weird BGP question [7:10384]
Richcard, I guess it could not be anything but that. But seems to me this has little to do with BGP. JP ""Richard Chang"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > This is indeed an interesting question although I never heard that it is > being done... > > If I were to take a guess, it would be to manipulate traffic so that > upstreams A would always be preferred. (append extra AS paths and a default > route should do the trick). Then there has to be some kind of network > management tools to send out alerts when the accumulated traffic for > upstream A reaches 300G. At that point, you can tell the router to take B as > preferred while put A as backup. > > Your upstream provider might have a traffic monitoring web page that you can > log into to view the same results. > > Any better ideas? > > Richard > > ""[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Nemeth)"" wrote in > message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Here's a weird BGP question I got today. Take a standard > > dual-homed site using BGP to connect to two upstreams. Is it possible > > to get BGP to route the first 300G of traffic per month to upstream A > > and the rest to upstream B? I'm told it's done all the time, but > > somehow I doubt it. > > > > Before the famous question gets asked, the problem being solved is > > cost. The idea is to not exceed the minimum cost of upstream A. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=10426&t=10384 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
