Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Oct/15 15:41, Dave Bell wrote: > Alternatively drop the iBGP session between the two MX80s. Depending > on the topology, it may not be needed. Yep, that'll work too. But then just to be safe, have a default route on each MX80 to the upstreams, in case the full table each upstream provide

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Dave Bell
Alternatively drop the iBGP session between the two MX80s. Depending on the topology, it may not be needed. Regards, Dave On 13 October 2015 at 14:38, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 13/Oct/15 15:18, Dave Bell wrote: > >> >> Packet is sent to the EX. It does a route lookup, and has its default >> rou

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Oct/15 15:18, Dave Bell wrote: > > Packet is sent to the EX. It does a route lookup, and has its default > route set at MX80 A. Packet is forwarded to MX80 A. > Packet is received by MX80 A. It does a route lookup, and the best > route is via MX80 B. Packet is forwarded to EX. > EX receive

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Dave Bell
ric route exists on the ingress and egress, there is no > longer an issue with connectivity. I only have an issue when the ingress and > egress paths traverse different MX80 devices. > > Thank you, > Chad > >> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing >> To: clevy...@outl

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Oct/15 15:04, Chad Levy wrote: > Hi Mark, > > The default gateway of the machine is the EX4500. > > I have since tried another scenario. If I place both ISPs on the same > MX80, and the same asymmetric route exists on the ingress and egress, > there is no longer an issue with connectivity.

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-13 Thread Chad Levy
paths traverse different MX80 devices. Thank you, Chad > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing > To: clevy...@outlook.com; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > From: mark.ti...@seacom.mu > Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:07:36 +0200 > > > > On 13/Oct/15 04:56, Chad Levy wrote:

Re: [j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-12 Thread Mark Tinka
On 13/Oct/15 04:56, Chad Levy wrote: > Hi all, > > I am having an issue with a new set of Juniper MX80 routers and an EX4500 > switch. My topology is extremely simple, each MX80 has its own internet > provider running full BGP routes, and iBGP between the two. The EX4500 is > connected to bot

[j-nsp] Asymmetric Routing

2015-10-12 Thread Chad Levy
Hi all, I am having an issue with a new set of Juniper MX80 routers and an EX4500 switch. My topology is extremely simple, each MX80 has its own internet provider running full BGP routes, and iBGP between the two. The EX4500 is connected to both MX80 devices with /30 P2P running OSPF with route