On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
> CLM> as a start, dropping HSRP and just managing 2 BGP peers from both
> CLM> ends one with metric 0 and one with metric 10 toward his ISP should
> CLM> satisfy all parties requirements. It should be a 'standard' con
CLM> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:14:29 + (GMT)
CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
CLM> i think, based on Eddy's previous message (the original for this)
CLM> it seems like he almost wants 'shadow link' capability. Given that
Correct. I've received enough questions that I'm tired of clarifying
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2004, at 11:01, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
>
> For your provider, supporting pur-laine, standard-configuration
> customers is cheaper than supporting customers where each has their own
> special-case setup. Supporting a netw
On 31 Dec 2004, at 11:01, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
I'm trying to persuade them that two provider/customer BGP sessions is
a
good thing,
The obvious reason for this might be explained along the lines of "your
router can reach two of our routers. We'd like a BGP session to each so
that we can take
note, me == chemical engineer, someone else here is a network engineer :)
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
>
> Would you please provide in detail your reasoning for needing
> the two BGP sessions and also why you would not need two
> sessions with [other upstreams].
Greetings,
I seek comments/feedback/URLs over what IMHO is an elementary issue, but
one in which I'm having little luck seeing eye-to-eye with another
provider. They have a couple 6500s for edge agg, yet are hesitant to
allow downstreams [with multiple border routers] to establish multiple
BGP
