On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 07:11:14 PM Nikolay Shopik wrote: > Well in our case all customers fiber/copper terminated in > same rack where is borders resides. So I just see no > point to having additional router for customer except > for additional redundancy of course. But this require > router able to handle traffic and having bgp full-view > for customer. If this router is NOT going to have hold > bgp for customer its okey probably terminate both bgp > sessions at border and connect them via L2 vlan/switch > as we having now.
Well, I wouldn't recommend this. Even though it's not impossible, your BGP routing policy could get complex trying to deal with customers and upstreams on the same router. Also, there's no clear separation between your border and edge services. If one of your border routers were massively attacked that it stopped working, so would your customers, even though the other border router is idle, waiting for traffic. In general terms, if budget is tight, it's not uncommon to use one router for everything (I'm sure most of us on this list went through that period at least once or twice in our careers). But if you have the budget, hierarchy will save your life. > Our looks like this, where CS1 and CS2 are core switches, > 3524XL for now, but will be replaced with 3560X. So bgp > session goes directly to CR2 for now. Again, if it's for now due to budget or some other issues, that's fine. But if it's long-term, you prefer separation between your edge and core services, much as you do between your edge and border services, and between your border and core services. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
