From: David Timmons (masterdt@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 14:47:06 ART
Hi,
I think that it is going to be difficult to utilize or
control the utilization of both bgp routers with
static routes. It is going to be easier to control the
path used if you can dynamically control the manner
that they are advertised to the internal networks. I
guess it really depends on the current use and future
use. With proper security, you can control the routes
that are advertised to EIGRP.
Why do you have to have 4 3700's controlled by the
ISP? I assume they have IBGP configured between the
two BGP routers? Do you have direct link for IBGP or
did you plan to send that through the 6509's? Are
these connections for one office or distributed over
and enterprise? What was the purpose of the BGP
connections?
--- Leigh Harrison <ccileigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have an issue with a customer. We've designed
> them a big new LAN and
> they are more than happy with it. The problem lies
> with the WAN link
> and the person who looks after the WAN links for the
> customer. The
> layout is like this:-
>
> 6509 - - - 6509
> | |
> - - 3725 - -
> - - -| | - - -
> | |
> 3745 - - - 3745
>
> If the diagram doesn't come out right, I have 2 x
> 6509's at the core of
> the LAN. They both connect on point to point links
> to a 3725 and the
> 3725 connects to 2 x 3745's which connect to the
> WAN. There is plans to
> put a second 3725 in place soon after this has gone
> in.
>
> The 3745's and the 3725 are managed by the WAN
> provider, but the
> customer is giving them the config that he'd like on
> the 3725.
>
> EIGRP runs between the 3725 and the 3745's and BGP
> runs over the 3745
> and the WAN.
>
> I suggested to my customer that we run a different
> EIGRP process (or
> OSPF) beween the 2 6509's and the 3725 (and the
> future 2nd 3725),
> redistributing, using routem-maps between the two
> protocols on the
> 3725. However, my customers WAN guy wanted to have
> static routing
> between the 6509's and the 3725. I went in to see
> them on Friday and
> configured up a test bed to prove that it will work
> no problems.and all
> seemed well. I then got a mail this morning from
> the WAN guy stating
> that he's not happy with dynamic routing and thinks
> that static is much
> better.
>
> I would appreciate any comments that I could use in
> the defense of using
> dynamic routing over static routing in this
> situation?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> LH
> #15331
>
>
> PS - The WAN guy is in the process of studying for a
> CCNP and his main
> concern is routes "leaking" into the WAN...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:46 ART