That’s what we are doing, too. We did an additional thing behind the 2 bgp uplink routers: We add another 2 routers
which are connected to both BGP-Routers. This allows us to leave the BGP-Routers alone. They do no MPLS, no filtering, … No one logs into them. The 2 routers behind only do OSPF so their routingtable is readable. This paranoia comes from times where Mikrotik had some OSPF bugs. It is no fun doing firmwaregames with BGP-Routers. We sail very smooth with this construct. Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Mathew Howard Gesendet: Montag, 25. Januar 2016 16:25 An: af <af@afmug.com> Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Redundancy at core router Whether or not it's possible, I don't know... but it definitely seems like overkill to me. I would just do one upstream per router and iBGP between them. On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:44 PM, TJ Trout <t...@voltbb.com <mailto:t...@voltbb.com> > wrote: I currently have 2 upstream's and only 1 router, planning to add a second router for redundancy, is it over kill (or even possible?) to get each upstream to allocate 2 ports on their router so that each of my routers will have 2 upsteams or is it more than sufficient to just do 1 upstream per router? It's extremely unlikely to have 1 upstream and one router fail at the same time, I think. Does that make since?
