+1 for using a routing protocol. BGP with a private AS is a decent fit here.
On Mar 24, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:27:59AM -0400, Dan Brisson wrote: >> I'm curious what folks do in the situation where you have redundant >> links to your customers. I'm speaking primarily in co-lo environments >> where you offer redundant Internet connectivity to co-lo customers. So >> for example, you give a customer 2 ethernet handoffs from two separate >> Layer 2 switches. Now what do you do if the customer wants to go to a >> routed model using both links. I could allocate /30s for both links, >> but then I have the issue of how to reliably route their block to them >> w/out running a routing protocol that will detect if one of the links >> goes down. That's where I came to static routes with IP SLA but I >> wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something easier. > > Just run a routing protocol... *SO* much easier. > > We use EIGRP for that (different EIGRP process, distribute-lists in and out, > so the customer can only announce his networks and will only receive default > from us), but for customers that cannot do that, we've also used BGP in > the past - more universally available, but way slower in falling over unless > used with BFD. > > You could use static+BFD, but I bet that half of the available gear will > not support that... > > gert > > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > //www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected] > fax: +49-89-35655025 [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/
