Thanks for the input! James Urwiller Network Operations Manager CCNA 11567125 American Broadband 402-426-6257 - Office 402-278-1875 - Cell 402-426-6273 - Fax
[email protected] On 3/1/13 11:29 AM, "Mack McBride" <[email protected]> wrote: >Most providers have a set of communities to set local pref and >Re-advertisement to peers that can be used to influence inbound >Traffic. > >The short answer is there is not a 'good' way to influence inbound >Traffic. Communities are your best bet. > >-----Original Message----- >From: James Urwiller [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:27 AM >To: Mack McBride; [email protected] >Subject: Re: BGP advertisements more specific than IGP > >Community strings don't effect inbound traffic, right? >Is there really no good way to influence inbound traffic? > >James Urwiller >Network Operations Manager >CCNA 11567125 >American Broadband >402-426-6257 - Office >402-278-1875 - Cell >402-426-6273 - Fax > > > > >[email protected] > > > > > >On 3/1/13 11:25 AM, "Mack McBride" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>You can use conditional advertisement to do what you are wanting to do. >>But as Randy mentioned you should really use communities with your >>upstreams to influence traffic. >>If communities don't work then consider conditional advertisement. >>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0/np1/configuration/guide/1cbgp. >>htm >>l#wp9071 >>If you advertise your deaggregates you should still advertise your >>aggregate block. >>That allows those of us who don't care about your traffic engineering >>desires but do care about the routing table size to drop your >>deaggregates. >>At some point a lot of providers are going to be dropping deaggregates. >> >>LR Mack McBride >>Network Architect >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] >>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Urwiller >>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:12 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [c-nsp] BGP advertisements more specific than IGP >> >>I have a BGP multi-homed invironment that I am having problems >>balancing inbound traffic, besides prepends which don't seem to be >>helping anymore, I have heard that announcing my networks more >>specifically could also influence inbound traffic. My question is, for >>example... If I have a >>/23 that I am using as a /23 in OSPF, can I announce that in BGP more >>specifically (2, /24's) without having to them break it up internally >>as well? What I foresee happening is this.. >> >>Example: >>BGP: >>Network 192.168.0.0/24 >>Network 192.168.1.0/24 >> >>OSPF: >>Network 192.168.0.0/23 >> >>I would think in this scenario, the IP addresses 192.168.1.0 and >>192.168.0.255 would not have a route in BGP, even though they are valid >>addresses for use when used as a /23. Since I would be multi-homed, I >>would still advertise the network as the aggregate /23 on the circuit I >>don't want to take as much traffic, so would those IP addresses in this >>scenario still work, but only through the circuit I advertise as the >>aggregate?? >> >>James Urwiller >>Network Operations Manager >>CCNA 11567125 >>American Broadband >>402-426-6257 - Office >>402-278-1875 - Cell >>402-426-6273 - Fax >>[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
