Some more food for thought... We are finding that setting up /configuring the OSPF links as PTP tends to provide faster failover convergence which becomes even more useful when it can be combined with bfd
In regards to the weights, it's more of a 'six or half a dozen of another' what values you use to affect the change will be determined by what exactly you are trying to achieve and 'flow' of traffic on your OSPF network.. 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: "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 4:47:03 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] easy backup link failover > I was thinking about that, 10 doesn't give much room for manipulation > On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > > wrote: >> That's typically what I do, just make the parallel backup path one higher at >> both ends. >> But I'll tell you this right now, consider a larger scale for your interface >> costs. As your OSPF domain grows into more complex rings or more of a mesh, >> shit will start to get complicated and you'll wish you had more granularity. >> What I'm moving to is interface cost based on link bandwidth. Kinda like >> Cisco's auto-cost, but not auto because MikroTik is stupid. Anyway.. take >> 100,000 รท link bw in Mbps. So 1G=100. An AF24 around 770Mbps would be a cost >> of >> about 130. A 360Mbps SAF link would be about 277. Etc, etc. Lots of >> granularity >> for tweaking traffic flow. >> On 9/2/2017 4:08 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>> we are replacing two links, currently cheap 5ghz (one epmp ptp and one ubnt >>> nanobridge) with mimosa 11ghz, we dont need that much bandwidth right now >>> so im >>> leaving the old links in parallel. >>> I just put the path cost on the interface for the 5ghz at 11 and left the >>> 11ghz >>> at 10. it seems to serve this purpose. but the other links in the redundancy >>> will see that extra 1 in path cost on failover, not so awful a deal since it >>> will drop capacity by 90 percent, but would i have been better to leave the >>> 5ghz at 10 and drop the 11ghz to 5?
