I am no BGP master, but from what I understand is that there are a few
"rules of thumb" so to speak. The first being that it is not deemed
acceptable to peer anything smaller than a /20. There is an RFC written
about this, I beleive, RFC#2008. The reason being that it is highly
desirable to keep your routing tables as efficient as possible. If everyone
peered and advertised a /24, there would be too many routing table entries
to make it work efficiently. As of this email, there are close to 100,000
advertised routes on the Internet. Secondly, You need a pretty powerful
router to peer with. I see many people saying that 128MB of memory is
desirable, not to mention a larger router, like a 7000 series, etc. Like I
said, I am a pure BGP beginner, but undoubtly, the masters here on
Groupstudy will have their say.
-Joseph
-----Original Message-----
From: Arif Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BGP implementations
Dear Fellows,
I have little routing problem, I have three links with three different
ISP's and 32 class C address Pool . I want to route 192.168.96.0/23,
192.168.102.0/23, 192.168.104.0/20 from ISP1 and 192.168.120.0/21 from
ISP 2 and 192.168.98.0/22 from ISP3. Right now we are using static
routes but now i plan to go for BGP but i want load balancing and link
redundancy. for IGP i want to use OSPF.
Can it possible ?
How ?
(ISP1Router)-----FastEthernet-----(RouterA)-----4MB
Serial-----(RouterB)-----2Mb Serial-----(RouterC)--------2Mb
Serial--------(ISP2Router)
|
2Mb Serial
|
(ISP3Router)
I really appreciate your favor.
If you want any other information please feel free to contact me.
Kindest Regards my friends
Arif Ali
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
