On 2026-01-21 22:40, Muhammad Atif Jauhar wrote:

Greetings of the day,

Thank you for the detailed discussion and recommendations. We confirm that this design is intended for an enterprise environment.

We have one additional query regarding traffic utilization across the two MPLS WAN links. While we understand that a primary/secondary design using BGP Local Preference is the safest and most deterministic approach, we would like to explore whether there are recommended methods to load balance traffic across both WAN links without introducing routing loops, asymmetric paths, or latency-related issues.

I have implemented this for customers with Viptela and Versa SD-WAN products in the past.

The SD-WAN tool set tends to do load sharing more effectively and is much more supportable than trying to load share using destination-based routing alone. This is especially true for your application-aware requirement.

One option under consideration is to manually prefer specific prefixes or destination routes on WAN Link-1 and others on WAN Link-2. While this is feasible, we would like to understand if there are alternative or more scalable approaches that are commonly adopted in enterprise MPLS environments, such as:

*

Controlled BGP-based load sharing using selective Local Preference per prefix
*

Use of BGP communities to influence provider-side routing for inbound traffic distribution
*

Application-aware or policy-based traffic steering (where appropriate)
*

Any recommended techniques that allow link utilization optimization while maintaining per-flow symmetry and stability

We would appreciate your guidance on whether active/active utilization is advisable in this scenario, and if so, what design guardrails should be applied to ensure predictable behavior and operational simplicity.

Your insights and best-practice recommendations would be valuable for finalizing the design.

Regards,
Muhammad Atif Jauhar

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 23:16, Brian Knight <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-01-21 07:49, Muhammad Atif Jauhar via cisco-nsp wrote:
Greetings,

We are planning to deploy two WAN links from different Service
Providers,
both offering MPLS connectivity with BGP peering. As part of the design review, we would like to align on the best-practice approach to ensure
a
stable, loop-free, and predictable routing architecture.
Given the use of multiple MPLS providers with potentially different
latency
characteristics, our key objectives are to avoid routing loops, prevent
asymmetric traffic issues, and ensure controlled traffic engineering
and
failover behavior.
Any recommendations or considerations based on your experience,
particularly with respect to MPLS interconnects and BGP traffic
engineering.

Sounds like you have an enterprise network connecting to NSPs. Your
network is probably not an NSP network itself.

It's not strictly on topic for this mailing list, but I'll provide
what's worked well for me.

Use a different RFC6996 private ASN for each site.

If you're doing a green-field deployment, use 10/8 RFC1918 space. Assign
a /16 to each site, so your second octet becomes your site prefix, and
your VLANs become your third octet.

Choose one NSP as primary, the other as backup. At each site, on your
incoming route policy from the primary NSP, set all routes to high
localpref, say, 1000. Set all routes from secondary provider to a lower
localpref, say 900.

Use BFD with BGP for fastest failure detection. Ask your carriers to
enable it on your BGP sessions if they support it. There are two
settings with BFD, minimum interval and multiplier. Review those
settings to see what fits your needs best. Detail here:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_0s/feature/guide/fs_bfd.html

Within each site, install two CE routers. Connect Router A to your
primary NSP, router B to the secondary. Connect the two routers together
back-to-back and configure iBGP across that link. Be sure to set
next-hop-self on the neighbor.

Pick two hub sites; one a primary site, the other a secondary site. Set
up the hub sites to announce all routes including those from the spoke
sites. Have the spokes announce only locally originated routes.

Connect those routers to the LAN in each location. Think about how
you'll integrate routing with your LAN gear.

* If you use an IGP internally at any site, avoid routing loops by
taking care not to redistribute locally originated routes from BGP back
into your IGP.

* If you use static routing, make sure a FHRP is set up on the CEs to
provide failover.

Consider setting up VPN backup through GREoIPSec or VTI tunnels to your two hub sites. Run BGP across those tunnels, same BGP process as you use
for connecting to your NSPs.

Use front-door VRF and ACLs to secure the Internet-facing interfaces on
the routers.

For routes received via VPN to the primary hub, set those to even lower
localpref, say 800.

For VPN to the secondary hub, set those to lowest localpref, say 700.

If you have any back-door links between sites, like Metro Ethernet,
switched Ethernet, or optical waves, integrate those by using BGP as
well. Announce locally originated routes with a higher local preference
than the MPLS networks, say, 1100.

But be careful sharing WAN routes learned via MPLS across a backdoor
link. Don't set those to a higher local preference than the MPLS network
itself. Avoid if possible.

Also, don't forget about the key management aspects for routers: syslog,
AAA / TACACS, availability and performance monitoring (SNMP), NTP,
Netflow, and FTP repository for router code. Use a loopback IP on each
router for your management traffic. Avoid SFTP or SCP to your code repo
due to known performance issues with OpenSSH and file transfers.

Consider setting up out-of-band access. Best is to build a small
parallel WAN/LAN over VPN with a firewall, LAN switch, and serial
console server. Get a separate Internet connection for the firewall
(business broadband works), and use it only for out-of-band access.

If you decide to configure QOS over the WAN, try to use standard packet markings like EF for voice media and AF31 for signaling. Check with your providers on what markings they support. The less re-marking of traffic
you have to do, the better.

Regards,

Atif.

Hope all this made sense. I'm happy to clarify anything.

This config served me well in my enterprise days and later on as an NSP
integrator. 25 years of experience in those spaces.

Hope this helps,

-Brian
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Reply via email to