>> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.
Care to elaborate more on this ?
By definition it is pointed out that putting hundreds of routers or hundreds of
routes are a weak point of OSPF, however there are many different techniques
available to manage that.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:23:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] (OSPF + ibgp) / formerly Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
> As you grow, you'll find it won't scale well.
> On 08/26/2016 02:21 PM, George Skorup wrote:
>> I do redist with OSPF. It works fine if you know what you're doing. MT OSPF
>> used
>> to act really stupid until ROS v6.27 or thereabouts.
>> On 8/26/2016 2:16 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>>> So just for the sake of a technical discussion...
>>> In your opinion, what is the merit of such a config (osfp + ibgp) ?
>>> It can be argued that such a config,
>>> a) Still depends on OSPF functioning.
>>> b) Layer an additional dynamic protocol on top of it (ibgp)
>>> c) Requires additional Routers (route reflectors).
>>> If the merit of such an approach is to manage manage OSFP behavior in a more
>>> granular fashion, Why not use the those features as they are available in
>>> OSPF
>>> / Best Practices...
>>> (OSFP best practices, suggest that, don't advertise connected or static
>>> routes,
>>> setup all interfaces as passive, and control prefix advertisements via the
>>> network section of OSPF).
>>> OSPF also tends to be the most common denominator (protocol) across
>>> different
>>> mfg. Bgp being the 2nd.
>>> Regards
>>> Faisal Imtiaz
>>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>>> Miami, FL 33155
>>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>>>> From: "Jesse DuPont" <jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net>
>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 26 , 2016 12:03:58 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>>> Right, PTP and loopback prefixes are distributed with OSPF (and possibly
>>>> management subnets for radios) and "access" network prefixes
>>>> (customer-facing)
>>>> are distributed via iBGP.
>>>> I have two of my routers configured as BGP route reflectors and all other
>>>> routers peer with only these two; this solves the full mesh and provides
>>>> redundancy.
>>>> Jesse DuPont
>>>> Network Architect
>>>> email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
>>>> Celerity Networks LLC
>>>> Celerity Broadband LLC
>>>> Like us! facebook.com / celeritynetworksllc
>>>> Like us! facebook.com /celeritybroadband
>>>> On 8/25/16 8:40 PM, David Milholen wrote:
>>>>> He may have meant only have the ptp and loopback addresses listed in
>>>>> networks
>>>>> On 8/25/2016 9:31 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>>> I've heard this concept a few times now. I'm not sure how only using
>>>>>> OSPF for
>>>>>> the loopbacks works.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>>>>> The Brothers WISP
>>>>>> From: "Bruce Robertson" <br...@pooh.com>
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 25 , 2016 6:28:43 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik OSPF weirdness
>>>>>> I've said it before, and been argued with... this is one of many reasons
>>>>>> why you
>>>>>> use iBGP to distribute {customer, dynamic pool, server subnets, anything}
>>>>>> routes, and use OSPF *only* to distribute router loopback addresses.�
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> your weird OSPF problems will go away.� My apologies if I'm
>>>>>> misunderstanding
>>>>>> the problem, but my point still stands.
>>>>>> On 08/25/2016 10:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>>>> Alright, this problem has raised it head again on my network since I
>>>>>>> started to
>>>>>>> renumber some PPPoE pools.
>>>>>>> Customer gets a new IP address via PPPoE x.x.x.208/32 (from
>>>>>>> x.x.x.192/27 pool).
>>>>>>> Customer can�t surf and I can�t ping them from my office:
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> [office] � [Bernie Router] � [Braggcity Router] � [Ross Router]
>>>>>>> � [Hayti
>>>>>>> Router] � [customer]
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> A traceroute from my office dies @ the Bernie router but I am not
>>>>>>> getting any
>>>>>>> type of ICMP response from the Bernie router ie no ICMP Host
>>>>>>> Unreachable/Dest
>>>>>>> unreachable etc � just blackholes after my office router.
>>>>>>> A traceroute from the Customer to the office again dies at the Bernie
>>>>>>> router
>>>>>>> with no type of response.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Checking the routing table on the Bernie router shows a valid route
>>>>>>> pointing to
>>>>>>> the Braggcity router. It is also in the OSPF LSA�s.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Another customer gets x.x.x.207/32 and has no issue at all.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Force the original customer to a new ip address of x.x.x.205/32 and the
>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>> starts working again.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Now � even though there is no valid route to x.x.x.208/32 in the
>>>>>>> routing table
>>>>>>> � traffic destined to the x.x.x.208/32 IP is still getting
>>>>>>> blackholed.. I
>>>>>>> should be getting a Destination host unreachable from the Bernie router.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> This is correct the correct response .206 is not being used and there
>>>>>>> is no
>>>>>>> route to it:
>>>>>>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.206
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Pinging x.x.x.206 with 32 bytes of data:
>>>>>>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.
>>>>>>> Reply from y.y.y.1: Destination host unreachable.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.206:
>>>>>>> ��� Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 2, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert 74.91.65.206
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.206.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.206]
>>>>>>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> � 1���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 7 ms� z.z.z.z
>>>>>>> � 2���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 6 ms�
>>>>>>> y.bpsnetworks.com
>>>>>>> [y.y.y.1]
>>>>>>> � 3� y.bpsnetworks.com [y.y.y.1] �reports: Destination host
>>>>>>> unreachable.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Trace complete.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> This is what I see to x.x.x.208 even though it is not being used and
>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>> route to it.
>>>>>>> C:\Users\netadmin>ping x.x.x.208
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Pinging x.x.x.208 with 32 bytes of data:
>>>>>>> Request timed out.
>>>>>>> Request timed out.
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Ping statistics for x.x.x.208:
>>>>>>> ��� Packets: Sent = 2, Received = 0, Lost = 2 (100% loss),
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> C:\Users\netadmin>tracert x.x.x.208
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Tracing route to host-x.x.x.208.bpsnetworks.com [x.x.x.208]
>>>>>>> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> � 1���� 6 ms���� 6 ms���� 6 ms� z.z.z.z
>>>>>>> � 2���� *������� *�������
>>>>>>> *����
>>>>>>> Request timed out.
>>>>>>> � 3���� *������� *���� ^C
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> I�ve verified there is no firewall that would affect the traffic �
>>>>>>> I even
>>>>>>> put an accept rule in the forward chain for both the source and
>>>>>>> destination of
>>>>>>> x.x.x.208 and neither increment at all. So the traffic is not even
>>>>>>> making out
>>>>>>> of the routing flow and into the firewall..
>>>>>>> �
>>>>>>> Any pointers are where to start troubleshooting next?
>>>>> --
>> !DSPAM:2,57c0b2eb92841205749441!
