On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 08:19:22AM +0200, Daniska Tomas wrote:
>
> actually gre fragmentation itself has nothing to do w/df bit. you either
> leave the tunnel with default mtu (and use ip fragmentation - of course
> depending on df) or you may cause it fragmenting packets and resembling
> them a
ax: +421 2 58224199
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
> -Original Message-
> From: Forrest W. Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14. mája 2002 0:02
> To: Roger Marquis
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: BGP a
set your mtu on your gre's to 1514
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster
wrote:
>
> > > I was thinking of doing iBGP over my transit connections (with a couple
> > > of static routes so the iBGP works) AND over my inter-city circuit. Any
> > > reason why this won't work?
> > >
> > > -Ralph
> > I was thinking of doing iBGP over my transit connections (with a couple
> > of static routes so the iBGP works) AND over my inter-city circuit. Any
> > reason why this won't work?
> >
> > -Ralph
>
> The loss of igp metric will make it untenable at best. Do it over a
> GRE tunnel, with you
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Roger Marquis wrote:
> Last time I tried this (IOS11.X to IOS11.X GRE) it was unreliable
> due to MTU limits. Certain websites (mainly financial) send large
> packets and set DF. This probably works around some security issue
> but the result was that these SSL servers cou
Scott Granados wrote:
> We set ospf
> internally, set up bgp for the announcements at each site and used the
> no-export tag for the more specifics. Then gre tunnels:) for the
> internal. It worked and I pushed probably 45 to 50mb over the internal
> loops or gre tunnels. Not ideal but it work
In the referenced message, Austin Schutz said:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:
> >
> > Multiple ASNs wouldn't solve anything in this case. What was wanted was
> > under normal circumstances both A and B only announce a /20, and when the
> > link between A and B breaks a
In the referenced message, Ralph Doncaster said:
>
> > BGP will discard any prefix with its own AS in the path, for loop
> > prevention. Hence, one half of the AS would still be unable to
> > reach the other half. This is why a partitioned AS is a failure
> > condition. A tunnel is a means to ke
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> > As long as this is getting messy... I'm tempted to suggest
> > confederations. Or spending a few extra bucks on a second ASN,
> > although that doesn't scale.
>
> Multiple ASNs wouldn't
On Mon, 13 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> As long as this is getting messy... I'm tempted to suggest
> confederations. Or spending a few extra bucks on a second ASN,
> although that doesn't scale.
Multiple ASNs wouldn't solve anything in this case. What was wanted was
under normal circumsta
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Interesting point there Scott.. we were discussing just that at a recent
> IXP meeting I was at. Theres a number of different ways (well hacks) in
> which you can keep connectivity between two halves of an AS network in the
> event of a split.
>
>
RD> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
RD> From: Ralph Doncaster
RD> Hmm... the default route idea sounds even easier than my iBGP
RD> over a transit link. I think I'll try your idea first.
Assuming your upstream knows how to get to the other location.
You want city "A" with upstrea
> > isn't a problem don't worry about it. If you wish to preserve
> > connectivity between cities you should have a back-up link or use
> > different as's or gre tunnels:).
>
> Floating statics would be a less-hassle means to continue connectivity
> (with only 2 locations not much of a scaling
RD> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
RD> From: Ralph Doncaster
RD> I was thinking of doing iBGP over my transit connections
Filters up, everyone! ;-)
RD> (with a couple of static routes so the iBGP works) AND over
RD> my inter-city circuit. Any reason why this won't work?
Static
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> I was thinking of doing iBGP over my transit connections (with a couple
> of static routes so the iBGP works) AND over my inter-city circuit. Any
> reason why this won't work?
I don't think doing iBGP over your transit connections, i.e., outside o
> BGP will discard any prefix with its own AS in the path, for loop
> prevention. Hence, one half of the AS would still be unable to
> reach the other half. This is why a partitioned AS is a failure
> condition. A tunnel is a means to keep the AS nonpartitioned.
I was thinking of doing iBGP over
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
> BGP will discard any prefix with its own AS in the path, for loop
> prevention. Hence, one half of the AS would still be unable to
> reach the other half. This is why a partitioned AS is a failure
> condition. A tunnel is a means to keep the AS nonp
In the referenced message, Andy Walden said:
> On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
>
> >
> > In the referenced message, Andy Walden said:
> > >
> > >
> > > Conditional Router Advertisement:
> > >
> > > http://www.american.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.pdf
> > >
> >
> > As it sounds like h
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
>
> In the referenced message, Andy Walden said:
> >
> >
> > Conditional Router Advertisement:
> >
> > http://www.american.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.pdf
> >
>
> As it sounds like he's using a single AS, the above may not be
> a fix, since a partitio
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:12:31PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> SJW> Is anyone out there actually doing something either this or
> SJW> similar to keep two halves connected in the event of a
> SJW> split.. and have you actually run successfully on your
> SJW> backup and maintained a reasonable
SJW> Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:07:50 +0100 (BST)
SJW> From: Stephen J. Wilcox
SJW> Is anyone out there actually doing something either this or
SJW> similar to keep two halves connected in the event of a
SJW> split.. and have you actually run successfully on your
SJW> backup and maintained a rea
In the referenced message, Andy Walden said:
>
>
> Conditional Router Advertisement:
>
> http://www.american.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.pdf
>
> andy
As it sounds like he's using a single AS, the above may not be
a fix, since a partitioned AS is still a failure condition.
One other solutio
Actually I ran this way for a while as a primary. I had three sites
attached via cogent entirely all announcing a /19 and the internally a
/21 each and a couple /21's out of the primary location. In the main
location was a 7507 and in the two other pops 6509's. We set ospf
internally, set
In the referenced message, E.B. Dreger said:
> * BGP is an EGP, not an IGP
BGP is one half of an IGP, it is the "where to go" half.
You generally run another IGP along with it to provide the
"how to get there" half. Most folks run isis or ospf to
transport router loopbacks and other next-hop inf
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
> Don't forget that if both sites use the same as even if the connection
> link drops they will not be able to see each other over the upstream
> provider as routers won't take the srutes from the same as. If this
> isn't a problem don't worry about
Interesting point there Scott.. we were discussing just that at a recent
IXP meeting I was at. Theres a number of different ways (well hacks) in
which you can keep connectivity between two halves of an AS network in the
event of a split.
Is anyone out there actually doing something either this
-
This is a great solution to a point. I did this, with the help of
someone who reads this list frequently:) but you have to jump through
some hoops should you wish both cities to reach each other. Assuming
for example all your dns and mail servers are in one city you'd have to
jump through
Don't forget that if both sites use the same as even if the connection
link drops they will not be able to see each other over the upstream
provider as routers won't take the srutes from the same as. If this
isn't a problem don't worry about it. If you wish to preserve
connectivity between
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Andy Walden wrote:
> Conditional Router Advertisement:
>
> http://www.american.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.pdf
Cool. This looks like what I want.
For those that don't like pdf, here it is in HTML from cisco.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.html
-Ralph
> On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:34:39PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
[...]
> > goes down I want each city to announce the local /21. Is this
> > possible? (using either a Cisco router or Zebra)
>
> If I was paying for transit, I would want THEM to do the work of
> delivering it to the right city
> * BGP is an EGP, not an IGP
> * You might want to check out OSPF if you think your net will
> grow
Using iBGP between the 2 cities right now. May try OSPF later.
> * You don't want your IGP influencing your EGP. Flap, flap.
> * Redistributing EGP into IGP isn't exactly good, either.
>
> A
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 05:34:39PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> I have transit in 2 cities. I have a circuit connecting the 2 cities as
> well. So far I've been using non-contiguous IPs, so there's been no
> opportunity for aggregation. Having just received my /20 from ARIN, I'm
> trying
Conditional Router Advertisement:
http://www.american.com/warp/public/459/cond_adv.pdf
andy
--
PGP Key Available at http://www.tigerteam.net/andy/pgp
On Sat, 11 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> I have transit in 2 cities. I have a circuit connecting the 2 cities as
> well. So far I've
RD> Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 17:34:39 -0400 (EDT)
RD> From: Ralph Doncaster
RD> I have transit in 2 cities. I have a circuit connecting the
RD> 2 cities as well. So far I've been using non-contiguous IPs,
RD> so there's been no opportunity for aggregation. Having just
RD> received my /20 from
34 matches
Mail list logo
