OSPF cost for backup route definitely needs to be higher... you can standardize all you want on some numbering system but as your network grows and you need to push some traffic in some directions and not others you will need the flexibility to manipulate path costs quite a bit.
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <(305)%20663-5518> > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email: > [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Steve Jones" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > 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? >>> >>> >> >
