Re: Merge 2 MPLS Network

I am assuming that the HQ router is the only device with a connection to both providers and will be used as a crossover point but as I have learned on many occasions it is wrong to make assumptions ;o)

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:46, Tony Singh <mothafungla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> There is a chance you may get asymmetric routing here if this is an issue for you to avoid this you can set the weight inbound from one peer to be higher, I would look at doing this at HQ and branch
>
> --
> BR
>
> Tony
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 29 Mar 2013, at 09:20, "Ian.blaney" <ian.blaney_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yuri
>>
>> As far as I can see it should work. If you have a peering to both providers, which are forwarding you the specific routes for each of your remote sites and assuming there is no filtering going on by the providers, the router should automatically forward the routes learned from each provider to the other provider.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 28 Mar 2013, at 23:50, Cisco Fanatic <ebay_products_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: ebay_products_at_hotmail.com
>>> To: bmcgahan_at_ine.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>> Subject: RE: Merge 2 MPLS Network
>>> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:47:57 -0700
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We will be using 1 router (at this site) with 2 interfaces - One interface
>>> connected to provider A and the other interface connected to provider B. The
>>> site is not running any IGP. We are just doing Layer 3 intervlan.
>>> The configuration on this router is as simple as it can get:!router bgp 65511
>>> no synchronization bgp log-neighbor-changes network 192.168.2.0 redistribute
>>> connected neighbor 209.155.71.xx remote-as 152xx no auto-summary!
>>> It looks like we are learning default route from provider A
>>> ROUTER#show ip route | i 0.0.0.0Gateway of last resort is 209.155.71.xx to
>>> network 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 127 subnets, 9 masksB*
>>> 0.0.0.0/0 [20/0] via 209.155.71.xx, 3w5d
>>> If we get a neighbor and AS from provider B, I am not sure how will this
>>> router know where to send the packets to?
>>> !router bgp 65511 no synchronization bgp log-neighbor-changes network
>>> 192.168.2.0 redistribute connected neighbor 209.155.71.xx remote-as 152xx
>>> neighbor 201.123.82.yy remote-as 142xx no auto-summary!
>>> -yuri
>>>> From: bmcgahan_at_ine.com
>>>> To: ebay_products_at_hotmail.com; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:11:07 -0500
>>>> Subject: RE: Merge 2 MPLS Network
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'm a big fan of INE too ;)
>>>>
>>>> With your diagram, yeah that works fine. Just remember that if this router
>>> or
>>>> one of its circuits goes down then you're SoL with connectivity between A &
>>> B.
>>>> Since you're using BGP you may consider adding another router for
>>> redundancy,
>>>> as the policy control is a lot easier than using IGP.
>>>>
>>>> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security), CCDE #2013::13
>>>> bmcgahan_at_INE.com<mailto:bmcgahan_at_INE.com>
>>>>
>>>> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
>>>> http://www.INE.com<http://www.ine.com/>
>>>>
>>>> From: Cisco Fanatic [mailto:ebay_products_at_hotmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:21 PM
>>>> To: Brian McGahan; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>>>> Subject: RE: Merge 2 MPLS Network
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Brian. I am a big fan of INE and heard lot about you.
>>>>
>>>> Attached is the quick diagram. The brainstorming plan is that one of the
>>> site
>>>> will act as an NNI and as BGP is running on the NNI router, the routes will
>>> be
>>>> learned via BGP which will make the routing decision as where to send the
>>>> packets to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: bmcgahan_at_ine.com<mailto:bmcgahan_at_ine.com>
>>>>> To: ebay_products_at_hotmail.com<mailto:ebay_products_at_hotmail.com>;
>>>> ccielab_at_groupstudy.com<mailto:ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:47:53 -0500
>>>>> Subject: RE: Merge 2 MPLS Network
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you already ask the providers if they'll run Inter-AS MPLS for you?
>>> If
>>>> they won't peer, and it's private L3VPN then there's not much you can do
>>> other
>>>> than multi-home a site both to A and B and redistribute the routes between
>>>> them. All inter-provider traffic is going to route through the multi-homed
>>>> site though, which will likely be your bottleneck and could be a single
>>> point
>>>> of failure. What's the current routing design look like?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593 (R&S/SP/Security), CCDE #2013::13
>>>>> bmcgahan_at_INE.com<mailto:bmcgahan_at_INE.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
>>>>> http://www.INE.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com<mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com>
>>>> [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Cisco Fanatic
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:04 PM
>>>>> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com<mailto:ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>>>>> Subject: Merge 2 MPLS Network
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently have an MPLS network provided from vendor A and we are
>>> moving
>>>> to an MPLS network provided by vendor B.
>>>>> For next 3 months till all other sites get FOC dates we have to utilize
>>> MPLS
>>>> network provided from vendor A. The only way around is to merge 2 networks
>>> and
>>>> start routing traffic on MPLS network provided by vendor B, till all sites
>>>> eventually are on vendor's B network.
>>>>> How can one merge 2 MPLS network?
>>>>> -yuri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>> We will be using 1 router (at this site) with 2 interfaces - One interface connected to provider A and the other interface connected to provider B. The site is not running any IGP. We are just doing Layer 3 intervlan.
>>>
>>> The configuration on this router is as simple as it can get:
>>> !
>>> router bgp 65511
>>> no synchronization
>>> bgp log-neighbor-changes
>>> network 192.168.2.0
>>> redistribute connected
>>> neighbor 209.155.71.xx remote-as 152xx
>>> no auto-summary
>>> !
>>>
>>> It looks like we are learning default route from provider A
>>>
>>> ROUTER#show ip route | i 0.0.0.0
>>> Gateway of last resort is 209.155.71.xx to network 0.0.0.0
>>> 10.0.0.0/8 is variably subnetted, 127 subnets, 9 masks
>>> B* 0.0.0.0/0 [20/0] via 209.155.71.xx, 3w5d
>>>
>>> If we get a neighbor and AS from provider B, I am not sure how will this router know where to send the packets to?
>>>
>>> !
>>> router bgp 65511
>>> no synchronization
>>> bgp log-neighbor-changes
>>> network 192.168.2.0
>>> redistribute connected
>>> neighbor 209.155.71.xx remote-as 152xx
>>> neighbor 201.123.82.yy remote-as 142xx
>>> no auto-summary
>>> !
>>>
>>> -yuri
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Fri Mar 29 2013 - 11:04:11 ART