On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Drew Weaver wrote: > Howdy, > > I am trying to figure out if there is a different/newer/better(?) way to > announce our public IP ranges to our Internet providers, currently we are > declaring our subnets in 'network statements' in the BGP configuration, we > have static routes setup like ip route x.x.x.x 255.255.224.0 Null0 254 and > then we have a extended access-list applied to each peer with our net blocks > listed in them. > > It appears that because of the network statements, the supernet routes (/18s, > /19s, etc) are being distributed via BGP to the rest of the network which is > by design(I assume). This doesn't seem ideal because if traffic is sent to an > IP address that doesn't have a more specific route than say /18, or /19 it > travels all the way through the network to the edge before stopping. I might > be blowing the impact of this out of proportion, but it just seems like a > waste of resources. > > Does anyone know of a seemingly more sensible way of doing this?
You could always tag these hold-down routes with a community, then when someone sends a packet to them, the next-hop could be rewritten to a local discard/null0 instance. This should allow you to distribute the load instead of backhauling the traffic to the final destination/aggregation location. - Jared _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
