From: MADMAN (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 16 2002 - 20:24:12 GMT-3
Since I am peering to loopbacks the IBGP may well have established across
either link, it doesn't really matter. The plus is you have redundancy.
I have also done the two HSRP group for some load balancing though when the
packet gets to the egress router it will take the best path and may well be
thrown back on the ethernet but any delay is totally insignificant.
As you allude to, there is no cookie cutter approach as customer needs, budget
and sometimes layer 8 issues are usually differant.
Dave
Brian Lodwick wrote:
> That was actually my first idea, that's cool that you brought it up. Then
> you run IBGP across that link? We've never tried that, because it requires
> dual ethernet interfaces on both the primary and the secondary and we save a
> little.
>
> Here's another idea- if you want to establish outbound load balancing and
> redundancy you can have the 2 ethernet interfaces on each of the routers and
> set up 2 seperate HSRP groups with the priorities swapped so that in one
> group A is primary and B is secondary and in the other B is primary and A is
> secondary. Both set to track the WAN side. Then setup a downstream router
> with 2 identical cost static routes pointing to the 2 virtual addresses.
>
> We've also setup a neat asymetric design for the hub where you have 3
> routers A, B, and C. On the spoke sites we set the route costs most
> preferred to B's WAN address, and set the preferrence for A and C the same.
> Then on the hub you set up 2 HSRP groups having A be primary on one group
> and setting C to be primary on the other group and B is secondary on both
> groups. And again setup a downstream router with 2 identical cost static
> routes pointing to the 2 virtual addresses.
>
> Instead of using HSRP we are using VRRP. It is very similar, but with VRRP
> priority doesn't work the same and there is no such thing as preempt. You
> can have several groups though so we've had to get a little creative.
>
> >>>Brian
>
> >From: MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com>
> >Reply-To: MADMAN <dmadlan@qwest.com>
> >To: Brian Lodwick <xpranax@hotmail.com>
> >CC: mcne95@yahoo.com, wade.edwards@powerupnetworks.com,
> >ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: OT: Change primary ISP from PacBell to Quest
> >Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:00:33 -0600
> >
> > What I do is have one ethernet network on which HSRP is configured and
> >leads back to the customer network. Set up a second ethernet connection
> >with a crossover cable between the two routers. Configure your IBGP
> >sourcing loopbacks and you have the redundancy needed to avoid said
> >problem.
> >
> > just another way...
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >Brian Lodwick wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 - 10:57:11 GMT-3