From: David (david@gotimmons.com)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2008 - 19:44:15 ARST
hi,
BGP question.
I have been fighting with a BGP issue for a while and my customer does not
want to make the changes I recommend. The main change is a prefix filter to
prevent asymmetric routing. In addition to that I have many others. For
one, I wanted to replace EIGRP between the two BGP routers with an IBGP
relationship; however, I am getting push back on making any changes to their
environment. Besides the fact that I have always created IBGP relationship
between routers in the same AS, I was having problems thinking about major
issues or design constraints created by the use of EIGRP.
Current Design Facts:
Facts)
1. We have two BGP routers, AS 64646 (notice 666 in there?) That peers to
two distinct AT&T routers: Basic Multi-home single provider.
2) They run EIGRP between the two (64646) routers on a directly connected
interface on each router
3) they run EIGRP between another interface on each router and two distinct
6500s.
4) They each form EBGP relationship with provider on an ATM interface. Very
ugly because provider strips private AS and advertise our own network back
to us with a public AS. This fact sets the scene for the asymmetric routing.
IE, IGP routes disappear and EBGP is the best path to get to local
resources,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 10:38:01 ARST