![]() |
Re: iBGP question.
On Jul 7, 1:56 am, Jarek Jarzebowski <jarek.jarzebow...@gmail.com>
wrote: > On 7 Lip, 07:40, "Bartosz Gagat" <bl...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote: > > > > > If possible- use full mesh. If not -use other techiques- like route > > reflector or confederation. > > > Bartosz Gagat"Jarek Jarzebowski" <jarek.jarzebow...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7cb3b19f-5ec9-45b7-98cc-619e51470017@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have AS and own PI prefixes. I have 2 BGP routers in different > > > locations (A and B). Router A announces some prefixes and B announces > > > another prefixes. Between routers A and B is iBGP session (direct > > > leased link connecting those two routers). > > > > Now I have to launch third location C with another BGP router within > > > same AS. > > > > Do I have to make full mesh iBGP connections between routers A,B and C > > > (I mean dedicated direct links) or may I use some other techniques > > > like tunnels, or whatever, to establish iBGP connections? A more fundamental question - why do you need to run BGP to existing site ? Do you not just need to run an IGP (via GRE tunnel( for inter-AS traffic ? |
Re: iBGP question.
On 8 Lip, 00:27, Merv <merv.hr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:56 am, Jarek Jarzebowski <jarek.jarzebow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 7 Lip, 07:40, "Bartosz Gagat" <bl...@poczta.onet.pl> wrote: > > > > If possible- use full mesh. If not -use other techiques- like route > > > reflector or confederation. > > > > Bartosz Gagat"Jarek Jarzebowski" <jarek.jarzebow...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7cb3b19f-5ec9-45b7-98cc-619e51470017@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > I have AS and own PI prefixes. I have 2 BGP routers in different > > > > locations (A and B). Router A announces some prefixes and B announces > > > > another prefixes. Between routers A and B is iBGP session (direct > > > > leased link connecting those two routers). > > > > > Now I have to launch third location C with another BGP router within > > > > same AS. > > > > > Do I have to make full mesh iBGP connections between routers A,B and C > > > > (I mean dedicated direct links) or may I use some other techniques > > > > like tunnels, or whatever, to establish iBGP connections? > > A more fundamental question - why do you need to run BGP to existing > site ? > > Do you not just need to run an IGP (via GRE tunnel( for inter-AS > traffic ? I have 2 locations (2 routers BGP using the same AS): A and B. On each site I have separate BGP upstream links to at least 2 peers (on each site), so in fact, those routers are using the same AS but are announcing different prefixes. I just have done my internal assignement: prefix X is used in location A, and prefix Y in B. It's done this way to provide my customers Internet using my PI adresses on each location. Now, because routers A and B use the same AS, so, I need iBGP session to reach prefix X (announced by A) from B, and vice versa. My AS is'nt big enough to make some internal traffic policy so I just need some way to reach my prefixes between sites. Unfortunetly, I have very poor direct leased link between those sites. I have to change it, and I am thinking of alternative solutins, for example: - make iBGP session between A and B using GRE over Internet (if possible) - use allowas-in to receive prefix X on router B through foreign peers (normaly BGP blocks prefikses originated from own AS). I don't know if my english is precise enough but I tried to explain situation as good as I can. The question is: "what solution is better?" Regards, Jarek |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.