From: Donny MATEO (donny.mateo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 00:55:41 GMT-3
One problem. How do rtrA initiate the tcp connection to router B when it doesn'
t have any route to
2.2.2.2 ?
The connection between the two router are eBGP and they are not running iBGP.
Donny
CCIE FUN
<ccieexam2002@yah To: Mhlanga Libone <libone
.mhlanga@nhsia.nhs.uk>, "'Donny MATEO'"
oo.com> <donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com
>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
cc:
23-08-2002 03:23 Subject: RE: eBGP Multihop Load
Balancing
under the router bgp config
you could specify the loopback address subnet
and also include the subnet for the links between RTRA
and RTRB
here is how it will be for RTRA
router bgp xxxx
network 1.1.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255
network 10.1.1.0 mask 255.255.255.252
network 10.1.1.4 mask 255.255.255.252
neighbor 2.2.2.2 ebgp-multihop 2
neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0
neighbor 2.2.2.2 weight 1000
neighbor 6.6.6.6 ebgp-multihop 2
neighbor 6.6.6.6 update-source Loopback0
the similar config will be apply to RTRB with opposite
IP's
hope that helps.
--- Mhlanga Libone <libone.mhlanga@nhsia.nhs.uk>
wrote:
> couldn't you use "maximum-paths" ...not exactly sure
> if thats the right
> syntax ?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donny MATEO
> [mailto:donny.mateo@sg.ca-indosuez.com]
> Sent: 22 August 2002 10:11
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: eBGP Multihop Load Balancing
>
>
> A quick one,
>
> if one is required to do load balancing over a
> multihop ebgp connection
> (rtrA and rtrB in different
> AS)
>
> lo:1.1.1.1
> lo:2.2.2.2
> |
> |
> rtrA: .1-------------10.1.1.0/30---------------
> .2:rtrB
> |
> |
> | .5 ---------------10.1.1.4/30
> ----------------.6|
>
> apart from the obvious static route from rtrA to
> rtrB loopback, over the two
> link with equal cost
> like : ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 10.1.1.2
> ip route 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255 10.1.1.6
>
> Anybody has any idea of what else solutions that
> might be able to be aplied
> to this case with the
> lab constraint of no static route allowed in any
> form ?
>
> thx.
> Donny
>
>
>
>
> Omer Ansari
>
> <omer@ansari.com> To:
> Brian McGahan
> <brian@cyscoexpert.com>
>
> Sent by: cc:
> "'Ademola
> Osindero'" <osindero@lagos.sns.slb.com>, "'Yadav,
> Arvind K (CAP,
> nobody@groupstudy
> GECIS)'"
> <Arvind.Yadav@gecis.ge.com>,
> "'VANGADASALAM,SURENDRAN
>
> .com
> (Non-HP-Singapore,ex4)'"
> <surendran_vangadasalam@non.hp.com>, "'Omer Ansari'"
>
>
> <omer@ansari.com>,
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>
>
> Subject: RE: BGP Metric
>
> 22-08-2002 03:41
>
> Please respond to
>
> Omer Ansari
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> yes. and just to clarify my (and possibly other
> ppls) misunderstanding,
> step 5 in the selection process is:
>
> 5.Prefer the path with the lowest origin type: IGP
> is lower than EGP,
> and EGP is lower than INCOMPLETE.
>
> and not actually the AD , which is more for which
> route gets into the
> route table.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Brian McGahan wrote:
>
> > A side note on MED:
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/bgp-med.html
> >
> > And BTW, distance does not have anything to do
> with BGP best
> > path selection. The BGP decision process is used
> to determine which
> > path is best. This does not necessarily mean that
> best routes will make
> > it to the IP routing table. Distance is part of
> this second decision,
> > but not the first.
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml
> >
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > Director of Design and Implementation
> > brian@cyscoexpert.com
> >
> > CyscoExpert Corporation
> > Internetwork Consulting & Training
> > http://www.cyscoexpert.com
> > Voice: 847.674.3392
> > Fax: 847.674.2625
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Ademola Osindero
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:43 AM
> > To: Yadav, Arvind K (CAP, GECIS);
> VANGADASALAM,SURENDRAN
> > (Non-HP-Singapore,ex4); 'Omer Ansari'
> > Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: RE: BGP Metric
> >
> > Arvind,
> >
> > Omer's explanation is quite right. The issue of
> admin distance does not
> >
> > come into play here . Infact on going thru some
> old posts, I found out
> > that the topic was touched in detail. The key is
> SYNCHRONIZATION. I
> > either
> > turn off synchronization or ensure the routes are
> synchronized.
> >
> > I did ensured the routes were fully synchronized
> and the rule was
> > followed.
> >
> > But this leads me to another question, how do i
> deal with my DMZ ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ademola
> >
> >
> > At 08:18 AM 8/21/2002 -0400, Yadav, Arvind K (CAP,
> GECIS) wrote:
> > >I think EBGP routes are always prefered over IBGP
> because of
> > >Administrative Distance, By default med metric is
> set to 0 to all
> > routers
> > >and router always compare med by default. The
> > >bgp always-compare-med will be usefull when
> router learns router form
> > two
> > >different ASs.
> > >
> > >Arvind
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: VANGADASALAM,SURENDRAN
> (Non-HP-Singapore,ex4)
> > >[mailto:surendran_vangadasalam@non.hp.com]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 4:42 PM
> > >To: 'Omer Ansari'; 'Ademola Osindero'
> > >Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > >Subject: RE: BGP Metric
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > > I think Omer is somehow right. The bgp
> always-compare-med
> > should be
> > >used for it to choose the lower med value. If
> this not done then the
> > >decision process will be skipped to EBGP is
> better than IBGP.
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:34 GMT-3