, 2016 4:37 AM
> To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [j-nsp] Dealing with multihomed customer BGP primary/backup links
>
> What would be the optimal way to deal with following scenario.
>
> The customer of ours has a primary bgp connection over primary link on one
> router, and a b
Hello,
Perhaps you should just try and combine the graphs in whatever graphing
software you are using and police them to their commit on both ports.
Then the customer is responsable for controlling the active/backup and the BW
usage. You just bill them on what they use since you don’t care how t
On 14/Jul/16 16:14, Harald F. Karlsen wrote:
>
>
> IMO this should rather be solved with a clause in your customer
> contract. I'm pretty sure this is not something you will se very often.
We see it all the time.
Mark.
___
juniper-nsp mailing list
On 14.07.2016 15:14, Cydon Satyr wrote:
Hi,
I understand, but if you are forcing customer to always use primary link
if it is up, and customer advertises his routes over backup link ONLY,
then he can go around uRPF restriction.
With uRPF you are assuming he advertises all of his routes over prim
On 14/Jul/16 15:14, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand, but if you are forcing customer to always use primary link if
> it is up, and customer advertises his routes over backup link ONLY, then he
> can go around uRPF restriction.
> With uRPF you are assuming he advertises all of his route
Hi,
I understand, but if you are forcing customer to always use primary link if
it is up, and customer advertises his routes over backup link ONLY, then he
can go around uRPF restriction.
With uRPF you are assuming he advertises all of his routes over primary
link where router can prioritize them.
On 7/13/16 1:41 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 13/Jul/16 10:36, Cydon Satyr wrote:
>
>> What would be the optimal way to deal with following scenario.
>>
>> The customer of ours has a primary bgp connection over primary link on one
>> router, and a backup bgp connection (up) on backup link on ou
On 14.07.2016 01:43, Cydon Satyr wrote:
uRPF check doesn't work since customer can just advertise his routes over
backup link.
I had some hopes for conditional bgp advertisement and SCU/DCU but I don't
think it works not to mention it's like trying to kill a bee with a hammer.
I'm talking about
Hi Cydon,
MC-LAG will provide the functionality you are looking for using
active/standby mode.
The active/standby mode is also available on both DPC and MPC hardware.
Alan
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> uRPF check doesn't work since customer can just advertise his route
uRPF check doesn't work since customer can just advertise his routes over
backup link.
I had some hopes for conditional bgp advertisement and SCU/DCU but I don't
think it works not to mention it's like trying to kill a bee with a hammer.
What about MC-LAG between two routers and just setting one l
On 13/Jul/16 22:23, Clinton Work wrote:
> On the primary BGP session I would set Local-pref 150 and send MED 100
> for example.
> On the backup BGP session, set local-pref 100 and send MED 150.
>
> The local-pref will set the preferred route in your network to use the
> primary BGP session.
On the primary BGP session I would set Local-pref 150 and send MED 100
for example.
On the backup BGP session, set local-pref 100 and send MED 150.
The local-pref will set the preferred route in your network to use the
primary BGP session. The MED should influence the customer to use the
pr
On 13.07.2016 10:36, Cydon Satyr wrote:
Any other suggestions maybe?
What about uRPF strict mode on the customer-facing interfaces? This will
prevent the customer from sending traffic on the "backup" interface as
long as the primary circuit is up and preferred on your end.
That being said
On 13/Jul/16 10:44, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> I agree with you 100%. Active/Active and splitting policer values.
Well, splitting the bandwidth equally has the side-effect of leaving the
customer at half-mast when one link fails. So that is not useful.
You'd have to fix the issue "commercially", not
I agree with you 100%. Active/Active and splitting policer values.
However, this doesn't help my case ;)
Thanks
Regards
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 13/Jul/16 10:36, Cydon Satyr wrote:
>
> What would be the optimal way to deal with following scenario.
>
> The c
On 13/Jul/16 10:36, Cydon Satyr wrote:
> What would be the optimal way to deal with following scenario.
>
> The customer of ours has a primary bgp connection over primary link on one
> router, and a backup bgp connection (up) on backup link on our other
> router. The customer may or may not (usu
What would be the optimal way to deal with following scenario.
The customer of ours has a primary bgp connection over primary link on one
router, and a backup bgp connection (up) on backup link on our other
router. The customer may or may not (usually not) terminate both
primary/backup links on th
17 matches
Mail list logo
