Re: asymmetric routing

fixed by changing to the same cluster-id on both RR's, I was reading that
using a different cluster-id's would avoid corner case black holing of
traffic hence my reason to use it.

come in Mr McGahan

:0)

On 2 March 2013 03:32, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Marc
>
> Thanks yes because firewall see's half conversation it is dropping traffic.
>
> Ok what I'm seeing on my RR is this
>
> SW1 clients are CE1 & SW2
> SW2 clients are CE2 & SW1
>
> So in the bgp rib of both reflectors I'm seeing SW1 not seeing CE2 as a
> valid path until the CE1>PE1 link drops
>
> SW2 however is seeing both CE2 (local) & CE1's addresses as bgp valid rib
> paths to the learnt source prefixes herin lies the problem
>
> Is my RR design correct? I am using different cluster-id's within same AS,
> but SW1 has it nailed on as in "I don't want to see the CE2 path as valid
> until my CE1>PE1 link drops"
>
>
> Tony
>
>
> On 2 March 2013 03:24, marc edwards <renorider_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So I have have a few thoughts on this...
>>
>> First, is it causing a problem (bandwidth congestion, added latency,
>> etc...) requiring fixing? Asymmetric routing can exist without harming
>> traffic (i.e. the Internet)
>>
>> Second, I thought about a fix. Since issue originates upstream I think
>> you will need to work with SP to possibly tag or send community valus
>> on upstream devices that can help identify where traffic is
>> originating and using these characteristics to filter.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>> Marc Edwards
>> CCIE #38259
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Marc
>> >
>> > Its is one AS bro, im stumped a bit here...
>> >
>> > Say that same source gets to a subnet behind CE1 and everything works
>> fine
>> > on this inbound-to-outbound path then the same source decides to reach a
>> > subnet behind CE2 where inbound everything is ok but outbound for the
>> CE2
>> > originating subnet it prefers CE1 due to best path selection 11 lowest
>> > router-id..
>> >
>> > Now if I knew the source prefix I would create a standard ACL and route
>> map
>> > to achieve the desired goal, I'm sure I can figure this out with some
>> help
>> > :0)
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2 March 2013 02:40, marc abel <marcabel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is it one provider or 2? Can you do As path prepending?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Experts
>> >>>
>> >>> Just like to gauge what would you do on best practice if we have the
>> >>> following scenario
>> >>>
>> >>> PE1>CE1>FW>SW>trunk>SW>FW>CE2>PE2
>> >>>
>> >>> SW's are RR
>> >>>
>> >>> traffic inbound to particular subnets is influenced by outbound
>> policies
>> >>> on
>> >>> the MED attribute, but my problem is when routing outbound the lowest
>> >>> router-id of CE1 wins when the packet originated from CE2
>> >>>
>> >>> Now "when you do not know" what the out-to-in source prefixes will be,
>> >>> then
>> >>> what is the best design practice you would follow?
>> >>>
>> >>> BR
>> >>>
>> >>> Tony
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> >>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> >>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Marc Abel
>> >> CCIE #35470
>> >> (Routing and Switching)
>> >
>> >
>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Mar 02 2013 - 03:48:32 ART