From: Brian Lodwick (xpranax@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 17:46:21 GMT-3
Well the down fall of using BGP on the front side and HSRP on the back side
is that the BGP will not know to fail over to the secondary WAN link if the
ethernet goes down on the primary. BGP will see the serial link still up and
will continue to send traffic to the primary and it will be dropped.
My solution is simple. Have 2 ethernet interfaces on the backside of the
primary all on the same subnet and only have one of those interfaces
participate in HSRP. The default-gateway for that subnet will be the HSRP
virtual address. That way even if the BGP does not switch over the packets
will still be dropped on the line via the other ethernet interface.
Maybe it's too simple and you already thought of it, but I thought it was a
neat and easy idea.
>>>Brian
>From: Vincent Lee <mcne95@yahoo.com>
>To: Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com>, wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com
>CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: OT: Change primary ISP from PacBell to Quest
>Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:28:08 -0800 (PST)
>
>Brian,
>
> I am very interesting on your HSRP & BGP
>redundancy solution.
>
>Vincent
>
>--- Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > We had a customer that was on our old old network.
> > This network had a
> > different AS and addressing. This customer wanted to
> > move to a newer
> > solution we offered, but wanted to keep the existing
> > addressing structure.
> > This wasn't much an issue, because accoring to our
> > policy we were allowed to
> > advertise any customer net above a /24, and they had
> > a /22. The old network
> > advertised an aggregate so this more specific range
> > was preferred and the
> > transition worked.
> > The reason I went into this whole schpeal is that
> > like you said if you get
> > addressing space from one of the providers, and you
> > get approval to
> > advertise that range out of the other provider as
> > well, you will have sort
> > of a primary / secondary solution and will not be
> > able to achieve load
> > sharing. Reason being is the provider you get your
> > addressing space from
> > will most likely be advertising to the NAP an
> > aggregate so the other one
> > that allows you to advertise the /24 will always be
> > preferred over the
> > aggregate. If redundancy is the only requirement you
> > would be fine if you
> > had one provider give you addressing space and you
> > advertised it out of the
> > other provider as well.
> > I wasn't aware you couldn't purchase a /24 from
> > ARIN. I'm not really too
> > knowledgeable on that type of thing. I only cut
> > addressing space from our
> > nets when needed for our customers. I have never
> > gone out and tried to
> > purchase addressing space from ARIN.
> >
> > BTW I have a neat HSRP & BGP redundancy solution to
> > fix the downfall of
> > using this combination if you'd like to hear about
> > it?
> >
> >
> > >>>Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Vincent Lee <mcne95@yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: Vincent Lee <mcne95@yahoo.com>
> > >To: Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com>,
> > wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com
> > >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: RE: OT: Change primary ISP from PacBell to
> > Quest
> > >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:09:07 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >Where can we apply for a class C IP address? ARIN
> > >only sell a larger block IP address. I believe if
> > we
> > >want multihomed with different ISPs (AS), we need
> > to
> > >setup BGP with both ISPs as peering.
> > >
> > >thanks
> > >
> > >--- Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The organization I work for will only allow it
> > if
> > > > the space is /24 or
> > > > larger.
> > > >
> > > > >>>Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Wade Edwards"
> > > > <wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Wade Edwards"
> > > > <wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com>
> > > > >To: "Vincent Lee" <mcne95@yahoo.com>
> > > > >CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > >Subject: RE: OT: Change primary ISP from
> > PacBell to
> > > > Quest
> > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:16:17 -0600
> > > > >
> > > > >To get a true backup you have to apply for your
> > own
> > > > address space that
> > > > >you can announce to both PacBell and Qwest. If
> > you
> > > > are using address
> > > > >space from both PacBell and Qwest then they
> > will
> > > > not allow you to
> > > > >announce their addresses through a different
> > > > provider. You can ask if
> > > > >they will but this is usually against their
> > routing
> > > > policy. So you
> > > > >don't need BGP. Just use static routing.
> > > > >
> > > > >L8r.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: Vincent Lee [mailto:mcne95@yahoo.com]
> > > > >Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:49 AM
> > > > >To: Brian Lodwick; dmadlan@qwest.com
> > > > >Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > >Subject: Re: OT: Change primary ISP from
> > PacBell to
> > > > Quest
> > > > >
> > > > >We are using the PacBell and already ordered
> > the
> > > > Qwest
> > > > >Circuit.
> > > > >Two perimeter routers configed with HSRP and
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > >only connect to Pacbell at this moment.
> > > > >
> > > > >We are going to keep PacBell as secondary with
> > a
> > > > >smaller bandwidth. Qwest will be the primary
> > > > inbound
> > > > >Web traffic.
> > > > >
> > > > >My first step is asking PacBell and Qwest for
> > AS
> > > > >peering info then I'll apply for our own AS
> > from
> > > > ARIN.
> > > > >
> > > > >thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >--- Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I would suggest you replace the Qwest
> > circuit
> > > > with
> > > > > > another provider so that
> > > > > > you get some support if it goes down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>Brian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com>
> > > > > > >Reply-To: MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com>
> > > > > > >To: Vincent Lee <mcne95@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: OT: Change primary ISP from
> > > > PacBell to
> > > > > > Quest
> > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:35:29 -0600
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean Qwest ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reading between the lines are you
> > currently
> > > > > > connected to PacBell? If
> > > > > > >so I would set up the BGP connection with
> > them
> > > > > > first, make sure they get
> > > > > > >rid of the static routing of your network.
> > > > Bring
> > > > > > up the Qwest
> > > > > > >connection. Then you could establish the
> > IBGP
> > > > > > connection between the
> > > > > > >two. Are you doing HSRP between the two
> > > > routers
> > > > > > that you defaulting to
> > > > > > >internally?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a couple of ideas based on limited
> > > > info.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Vincent Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am going to setup a redundancy
> > multihomed
> > > > BGP
> > > > > > > > network with two separate ISPs - PacBell
> > and
> > > > > > Quest.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is my plan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. setup BGP in our company's perimeter
> > > > routers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. connect to Pacbell and Quest
> > autonomous
> > > > > > system
> > > > > > > >
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:57:10 GMT-3