At 01:36 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, Peter Walker wrote: >Folks > >A quick question on external BGP connection configuration. > >Given an organisation (ORG) with 2 EBGP routers (up1, up2) and two upstream >providers (pr1, and pr2) where provider pr1 is currently linked to the >router up1 via a serial link and provider pr2 is currently linked to router >up2 via a traffic shaped and limited ethernet link. ORG is does not allow >transit between the providers. > >Is there any reason why ORG should not > > a) connect pr1 to the same ethernet segment > b) form bgp neighbor relationship with BGP peer at provider pr2 > c) advertise appropriate MED values requesting that pr2 prefer up2 > d) set local preference to prefer link via up2 to pr2 over up1 to pr2
I'm not sure if you are messing up your prs and ups here, but I'm not following you entirely. Why would you not just peer both routers and use prepend/med and pref to control load like most folks do? Maybe explaining what is better or different about this approach would help explain what the approach is :) Pete >What I am looking for is technical (or business/political) reasons why this >is a good or bad idea. > >I understand that all this would give is redundancy at the router level >(up1, up2), the ethernet link and pr2's router are all still potential >single points of failure. I also understand that pr2 may not wish to allow >such a configuration. > >Also, what would need to be done to ensure that any changes made would not >have any impact on decisions regarding the routing choice between pr1 and >pr2? > >Regards > > Peter Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=62864&t=62860 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
