Anyone who is able to setup BGP routing on a CCR1016 please contact me
offlist for details. We just got our initial IP allocation and need to hire
out setting this up and some initial training.
Thanks
Chris Fabien
LakeNet LLC
___
Wireless mailing list
Wi
You could do it a couple ways. First, use BGP multihop inside your
network to connect all three routers. Second, use a tunnel to connect
them with normal BGP. Then, traffic will go out the best BGP route.
WISPA Wa
Hi,
You really didn't explain what issues you're experiencing in your test bed, but
it sounds like you want simple iBGP peering. You'd do something like this on
both routers.
/routing bgp peer
add instance=default remote-address=192.0.2.1 remote-as=36295
update-source=loopback0
If you wanted
I need some assistance...
I currently have two upstream connections at 100MB with a full BGP feed
each into Mikrotik x86 routers wich are also running OSPF facing internally
- no routes are distributed from BGP to OSPF. The two BGP routers are
located in two different cities and do not share B
, any recommendations who I should contact? Thanks again.
>
> `S
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:54 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: R
anks again.
`S
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Load Balancing Help
AS Prepends don't work so well now-a-days. We h
AS Prepends don't work so well now-a-days. We have 3 full BGP feeds and
keeping them balanced (incoming traffic) is quite a chore. It can be
done, but it takes using communities and other BGP tricks.
It would be worth finding a BGP Guru that can do some BGP magic and
paying them a couple hundre
Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Scott Vander Dussen
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] BGP Load Balancing Help
On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits:
DS3 @ 45mb/s
Fiber @ 100mb/s
Prepending is no longer the desirable solution and should only be used if your
upstreams don't support a better way.
The preferred way is to adjust local preference based on a route policy. You
can simply prefer your fiber circuit if you want or adjust it on an AS basis.
You will likely only wa
WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Load Balancing Help
The simplest way is to prepend the DS3 circuit.
Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
> On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits:
> DS3 @ 45mb/s
> Fiber @ 100mb/s
>
> The DS3 is routed more efficiently (less hops) and the
The simplest way is to prepend the DS3 circuit.
Scott Vander Dussen wrote:
> On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits:
> DS3 @ 45mb/s
> Fiber @ 100mb/s
>
> The DS3 is routed more efficiently (less hops) and the fiber less efficient
> (more hops). Since the BGP is routing traffic based
On a single ImageStream router we have two circuits:
DS3 @ 45mb/s
Fiber @ 100mb/s
The DS3 is routed more efficiently (less hops) and the fiber less efficient
(more hops). Since the BGP is routing traffic based upon number of hops to
final destination only, the DS3 gets 95+% of all our internal
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 00:57 -0500, Butch Evans wrote:
> MED, in my experience, is not as commonly used. It is only useful if
> the peer does not add other preferences for your AS.
I should clarify this. Most companies that create local preference will
at least allow you to "opt out" via commu
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:33 -0500, Jon Auer wrote:
> You can use MED in influence inbound traffic from the same AS
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094934.shtml
MED, in my experience, is not as commonly used. It is only useful if
the peer does not add other
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:01 -0400, Sales wrote:
> We have two bgp sessions with different providers using the same
> interface. One provider is metered the other is flat rate. However we
> seem to send 80% of traffic to the metered provider. Is there a way to
> tell a mt router using bgp whi
> influencing traffic via the "poorer" upstream due to the shorter AS path?
>>
>> P.
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
>> Sent: 05 October 2009 18:33
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WI
om: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
> Sent: 05 October 2009 18:33
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
>
> Prepending on *inbound* BGP will influence local route
> selection/*outbound* traffic.
>
> You can use MED in influence inbound traffic from
AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
We have two bgp sessions with different providers using the same
interface. One provider is metered the other is flat rate. However we
seem to send 80% of traffic to the metered provider. Is there a way to
tell a mt router using bgp which path you
Jon,
By prepending to/from the "better" upstream peer aren't you influencing
traffic via the "poorer" upstream due to the shorter AS path?
P.
-Original Message-
From: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
Sent: 05 October 2009 18:33
To: WISPA General List
http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
Author of "Learn RouterOS"
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Olsen
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp a
ast in
> Cisco) as per below:
>
> Weight
> Local preference
> Multi-exit discriminator
> Origin
> AS_path
> Next hop
> Community
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
> Sent: 05 October 2009 17:18
&
ober 05, 2009 1:07 PM
To: "wireless"
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
Actually there are other ways to influence inbound traffic other than
specific routes or AS Prepending (i.e. MED). The problem with more specific
routes is that some ISP's will drop routes that have a small subne
s,
P.
-Original Message-
From: Brad Belton [mailto:b...@belwave.com]
Sent: 05 October 2009 17:29
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
You mention "send" traffic, but do you mean "receive" traffic? Or both?
To influence your outbound traffic (sen
gent, then
Michiana, on to ColoStore.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: "Sales"
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:01 AM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
&
9 11:15 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
Ya, its kind of hard to know what you want to do. You can setup costs
so that one provider is cheaper than the other, prepends for inbound
etc. I would have to take a look really to go,
-
From: Jon Auer [mailto:j...@tapodi.net]
Sent: 05 October 2009 17:18
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
The most common method is to prepend your AS number to the path that
you announce to the ISP that you want to de-prioritize.
You would use set-bgp-prepend on the inbound
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
>> Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On
>> B
wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Sales
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
Awesome but that wasn't much help lol.
John Buwa
Michiana Wireless,Inc
574-233-7170
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 5
uot;
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Sales
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:01 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
>
> We have two bgp sessions with di
.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
Author of "Learn RouterOS"
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Sales
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Bgp and mt
We have two bgp
We have two bgp sessions with different providers using the same
interface. One provider is metered the other is flat rate. However we
seem to send 80% of traffic to the metered provider. Is there a way to
tell a mt router using bgp which path you prefer it to use ? I would
like to make our
arini
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:09 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] BGP Question
IS there any way to verify on a Router the Advertisements received from
a peer?
in Mikrotik?
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143
IS there any way to verify on a Router the Advertisements received from
a peer?
in Mikrotik?
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
W
e are other things that I don't know much about.
--
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:04 PM
Sub
t
http://j2sw.mtin.net
http://www.ndwave.com
-Original Message-
From: Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 2:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] BGP
If one were to multihome/BGP a wisp primarily serving home users
between Cogent and another carrier
I have dual homed feeds from AT&T and Sprint. When I first installed
the second, all traffic preferred AT&T. I added AS pre-pends to the
AT&T link, until it was fairly equal between the two. From my
understanding this makes your router appear further from the network
than it really is on tha
Matt wrote:
> If one were to multihome/BGP a wisp primarily serving home users
> between Cogent and another carrier like TWT or other where would the
> majority of the traffic wind up flowing? Just considering some
> bandwidth options.
>
It really depends on where your users are going.
When we
If one were to multihome/BGP a wisp primarily serving home users
between Cogent and another carrier like TWT or other where would the
majority of the traffic wind up flowing? Just considering some
bandwidth options.
Matt
--
I don't know; it seems like you are trying to solve the wrong set of
problems. Why not just build a business model based on paying T1
pricing? This will allow you to get your business rolling now without
routing worries like you currently have. Further, you can bond more T1s
as your needs grow.
oh yeah, in DeKalb, IL 60115
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BG
Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
So, about $750-$900 per month?
Anyone on the list have a POP in Chicago to share bandwidth (and bandwidth
costs!) with Mike?
You may
though I've routinely hit 5 or 6 megs.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
id E. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
Mike Hammett wrote:
> They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is one
big flat
--- Original Message -
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:41 AM
Subject: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
My upstream isn't very routing friendly. They're also having some issues,
but I believe they'll ha
h
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
>
> They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole net
Would it be possible to bridge to the remote box on the provider's
provider's NOC?
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
Mike Hammett wrote:
They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
That doesn't make any sens
Mike Hammett wrote:
They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
They have to route something somewhere, unless their whole network is
one big flat thing, and that just makes me want to weep.
If you're presently using their IP addresses, they probably don't want
to BGP-peer
Mike Hammett wrote:
They don't route at all anywhere and have no intention of it.
That doesn't make any sense. If you are buying DIA then they need to
route everywhere.
I was getting ready to get my own ASN so I could bring in a second
upstream for the redundancy and increased performance th
Imagestream routers have a lot of beef. ;-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:06 A
ondary route.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Engineering
Mike Hammett wrote:
Being as though they aren't routing friendly (and don't want to change
their whole network to be routing friendly), they are flexible enough
where I imagine that I could put a box at their upstream and VPN over
their network so I can do BGP.
So you have your own direct IP a
What do you mean by not "routing friendly"? Do you mean that they don't
provide BGP peering? Or, that they just don't really know what they are
doing...
Unless you have multiple upstream connections, there is (rarely) any reason
to do BGP peering yourself. If you have your own ARIN block, most
My upstream isn't very routing friendly. They're also having some issues, but
I believe they'll have it figured out soon. A VPN over their network solves
all the current issues.
Being as though they aren't routing friendly (and don't want to change their
whole network to be routing friendly),
Jeff Broadwick wrote:
"AS prepending is fairly effective method. Assuming you have more then just
a /24 network, you also can use selective advertising of more specific
prefixes through a preferred provider to influence inbound traffic."
AS prepending is not as effective as it used to be. I
PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Question
Prepending is not an effective way of forcing other providers to send their
traffic through your preferred upstream. In fact, there is no good way to do
it at all. It is far better to just have quality upstreams.
-Matt
Don Annas wrote:
>
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Don Annas wrote:
When peering with multiple providers, is it a requirement that you
pick a primary to send and receive traffic or can you not prepend
AS hops and allow traffic to arrive to you via the 'best' BGP
route.
There is no way to "insure" that traffic will come ba
Don Annas wrote:
Well, our upstream providers are Level 3 and Time Warner Telecom. Both are
good providers however, it is important that our traffic doesn't enter one
provider and leave another since we provide VoIP services. I was looking
for the 'best' way to achieve this.
There is no way
riginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:23 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] BGP Question
Prepending is not an effective way of forcing other providers to send
their traffic through your preferred up
Prepending is not an effective way of forcing other providers to send
their traffic through your preferred upstream. In fact, there is no good
way to do it at all. It is far better to just have quality upstreams.
-Matt
Don Annas wrote:
When peering with multiple providers, is it a requirement
When peering with multiple providers, is it a requirement that you pick a
primary to send and receive traffic or can you not prepend AS hops and allow
traffic to arrive to you via the 'best' BGP route.
As a VoIP provider, it is important that traffic enter and leave via the
same provider. We curr
61 matches
Mail list logo
