You can just accept directly-connected peers from each network (or within 2
AS's, etc) then point a default at each one with different preferences. You
can do with with two edges if you like also: iBGP between the edges, and
push default into OSPF from both.
WRT dynamic load balancing... generally
You really limit yourself when you just take a default from a provider. If
you take 2 default's (one from each provider) for whatever reason, once you
change the local pref on one of them, it's all your traffic outbound or
none.
I always request a full table + default, so you can filter to best su
> From: Ahmed Yousuf
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:32 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Dual Homed BGP for failover
>
>
>
> - Is this really a good idea, as the BGP process won't care
> what
> the utilisation of the links are and you will see situations where the
> lower
> spe
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Ahmed Yousuf wrote:
> It
> has now been requested to be able to distribute traffic across both links
> rather than preference traffic to the higher speed link.
> - Is this really a good idea, as the BGP process won't care what
> the utilisation of the lin
On 1/18/2011 1:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
IMO, that would be a mistake. Taking significantly less than a full
table severely limits your options for balancing traffic between the
links.
It should also be noted that taking a full table, doesn't mean you have
to use the full table. Apply fi
gt; To: b...@herrin.us
> Subject: Re: Dual Homed BGP for failover
> CC: ayousuf0...@gmail.com; nanog@nanog.org
>
>
>
> On 1/18/2011 1:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > IMO, that would be a mistake. Taking significantly less than a full
> > table severely limits your op
> -Original Message-
> From: Brandon Kim
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:57 AM
> To: jba...@brightok.net; b...@herrin.us
> Cc: ayousuf0...@gmail.com; nanog group
> Subject: RE: Dual Homed BGP for failover
>
>
> Someone should advise him that if he
On 1/18/2011 2:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
One can take a full feed but filter so only a subset of the routes are
actually installed. For example, filter all routes that are more than
one AS away from the immediate upstream.
You should still be careful, as most processors keep a copy of filte
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> You should still be careful, as most processors keep a copy of filtered
> routes as well, so while your forwarding table may not increase, your route
> processor memory most likely will.
>
>
I don't think this is the case, on IOS at least. Some
On 1/18/2011 3:03 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
I don't think this is the case, on IOS at least. Some years ago I was
rocking some 7500s with $not_enough ram for multiple full tables, but
with a prefix list to accept le 23 they worked fine.
On JunOS, I know I can view pre and post filtered bgp u
Yep, the great thing about IOS without 'commit confirmed' is when you remove
a bgp filter, it runs out of memory, reboots, brings up peers, runs out of
memory, reboots... meanwhile if you're trying to get in over a public
interface you're cursing John Chamber's very existence. Not that that's ever
I would be hesitant to do full tables on an SRX210, particularly if you only
have an SRX210B with 512MB of RAM. I'm not sure what filtering would do in
terms of memory usage, because I have not tried it. I generally put a separate
edge device in to handle the upstream and BGP, and use the SRX p
Me <3's "commit confirmed" ... maybe someone from Cisco should be watching
:)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> Yep, the great thing about IOS without 'commit confirmed' is when you
> remove
> a bgp filter, it runs out of memory, reboots, brings up peers, runs out of
> memo
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brandon Kim
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:57 AM
>> To: jba...@brightok.net; b...@herrin.us
>> Cc: ayousuf0...@gmail.com; nanog group
>> Subject: RE: Dual Hom
ly we don't
need to do this that often.
Thoughts?
Ahmed
From: Max Pierson [mailto:nmaxpier...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 January 2011 21:30
To: Jack Carrozzo
Cc: Jack Bates; ayousuf0...@gmail.com; nanog group
Subject: Re: Dual Homed BGP for failover
Me <3's "comm
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:23:47 -, Ahmed Yousuf wrote
> - Accept that we are never going to get an ideal
> distribution of traffic and continue monitoring and adjusting local
> pref/prepends etc. as and when we need to change the distribution of
> traffic. Hopefully we don't need to
f the
higher capacity link.
-Original Message-
From: Randy McAnally [mailto:r...@fast-serv.com]
Sent: 19 January 2011 14:00
To: Ahmed Yousuf; 'nanog group'
Subject: RE: Dual Homed BGP for failover
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:23:47 -, Ahmed Yousuf wrote
> - Accept
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:26:32 -, Ahmed Yousuf wrote
> We're doing BGP to announce our PI space and make sure that our PI
> space is reachable through both ISPs in case one link goes down.
> This is the primary need to do the BGP here. Unfortunately my boss
> has requested that we make use o
hghi availability and load balancer solution
> (InterNetX - J?rgen Gotteswinter)
> 5. Re: Network Simulators (Ryan Shea)
> 6. RE: Network Simulators (Gary Gladney)
> 7. RE: Dual Homed BGP for failover (Randy McA
19 matches
Mail list logo
