Hello,
I agree, changing the AS-PATH is not preferred in an ideal world.
My case is one where we have a large WAN, with 100+ routers. Designing
and traffic engineering that with a single AS is non-trivial so we
rely on private ASNs to leverage the excellent eBGP vs iBGP
differences to our
On 2019-03-31, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:36:26AM +0100, open...@kene.nu wrote:
>> > I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
>> > in this case is to mimic the Cisco option
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:36:26AM +0100, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> > I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
> > in this case is to mimic the Cisco option "neighbor x.x.x.x
> > remove-private-as" which
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 08:36:26AM +0100, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
> in this case is to mimic the Cisco option "neighbor x.x.x.x
> remove-private-as" which removes any private ASes from the path on any
> updates to a peer. Just
On 2019-03-29, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2019.03.29 08:36:26 +0100:
>> I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
>> in this case is to mimic the Cisco option "neighbor x.x.x.x
>> remove-private-as" which removes any private ASes from
open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2019.03.29 08:36:26 +0100:
> I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
> in this case is to mimic the Cisco option "neighbor x.x.x.x
> remove-private-as" which removes any private ASes from the path on any
> updates to a peer. Just
I forgot to add to my previous email. One thing that could be useful
in this case is to mimic the Cisco option "neighbor x.x.x.x
remove-private-as" which removes any private ASes from the path on any
updates to a peer. Just throwing it out there, cant be a very
difficult option to implement I
That will indeed help. Will check it out.
How I have solved it now is by having network statements on the edge
(/24s). To make the internal routing work I announce more specific
prefixes from the internal router, so externally I announce a /24
(from edge to peering partners) but internally I
open...@kene.nu(open...@kene.nu) on 2019.03.27 12:25:33 +0100:
> Hello,
>
> That would unforunately affect all the prefixes announced to the edge
> router from the internal router. I need it to be only prefixes
> announced to my peering partners.
>
> /Oscar
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:50 PM
Hello,
That would unforunately affect all the prefixes announced to the edge
router from the internal router. I need it to be only prefixes
announced to my peering partners.
/Oscar
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:50 PM Denis Fondras wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 02:54:38PM +0100,
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 02:54:38PM +0100, open...@kene.nu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a way to make openbgpd strip private ASNs from updates it
> sends to certain neighbors?
> I am using openbgpd on my edge routers and distribute routes generated
> internally to the rest of the world. However,
11 matches
Mail list logo
