From: John Neiberger (neiby@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 13:34:36 GMT-3
---- On Fri, 03 May 2002, Howard C. Berkowitz
(hcb@gettcomm.com) wrote:
> At 8:31 AM -0400 5/3/02, Jeff Duchin wrote:
> >Has anyone configured a single edge router with dual OC-3
circuits to the
> >same provider... announcing one summary route via BGP? I
want to be able to
> >utilize both pipes.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jeff
>
> I haven't done it exactly that way, but let me explain the
> alternatives. When you have as much traffic as that, there's
a fair
> argument to be made for having dual routers to avoid a single
point
> of failure. In that case, split your addresses into two
ranges and
> advertise both the less-specific and more-specific.
>
> Assume your address range is 172.16.0.0/15.
>
> Router 1 advertises 172.16.0.0/15 and 172.16.0.0/16
> Router 2 advertises 172.16.0.0/15 and 172.17.0.0/16
>
While I don't have OC-3 pipes to play with, this is exactly
what I'm doing with out connections to Sprint. Following the
longest-match rule, this splits the traffic between our two
links but it allows for failover should one of the links go
down. It seems to work fairly well so far.
>
> PS -- Forgive me, but I can't resist. Of course, as some
have
> suggested here, I only do theoretical things, not mission-
critical
> networks like this. This must be a figment of my
imagination. ;-)
>
I was temporarily confused by your post. I was under the
impression you'd never touched a router or a switch! I must
say I'm shocked to discover that contrary to the beliefs of
some you actually have some production experience! :-)
[Tongue firmly in cheek]
To be honest, I've heard you mention networks that you've
worked on that would make many CCIEs cringe with fear and have
serious feelings of inadequacy.
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:49 GMT-3