«

Hi,

I would like to purchase 2 internet connections from 2 different ISP's, one
a DSL line, and the other one a T1, and to use them for common internet
traffic for my network users(dsl), and the T1 for the application servers
we're hosting for internal and external clients.

I know there's BGP involved into this design, but the hardware for it it's
so expensive.....darn; is there anybody out there that tried this
(successfully) with low level hardware - CISCO 2600 routers, or software?

Are there any other solutions available, ideas?

Julian Dragut
No matter how crazy it sounds, I'm always up for the challenge

"Julian Dragut" <> wrote in message
news:S5bae.87561$7Q4.71669@clgrps13...
> Hi,
>
> I would like to purchase 2 internet connections from 2 different ISP's,
> one
> a DSL line, and the other one a T1, and to use them for common internet
> traffic for my network users(dsl), and the T1 for the application servers
> we're hosting for internal and external clients.
>
> I know there's BGP involved into this design, but the hardware for it it's
> so expensive.....darn; is there anybody out there that tried this
> (successfully) with low level hardware - CISCO 2600 routers, or software?
>
> Are there any other solutions available, ideas?
>
> Julian Dragut
> No matter how crazy it sounds, I'm always up for the challenge
>
>

Yes - Think so.

2600 will not handle full BGP tables from 2 upstreams so would not think
about BGP on your router. Not necessary anyway.

Have the upstreams announce your address space and you simply have static
routes of equal weight pointing at each ISP and say EIGRP or OSPF on your
side or even static routes should do the job.

If one link goes down at the ISP end your outbound traffic may not see it on
the DSL line especially so you will need a OS capable of HSRP using tracking
that can actually ping the other end via the link.

Really messy to be honest.

BGP over DSL = Bad idea.
DSL/T1 Balancing of traffic = Bad Idea

Sure there are more potential problems and pitfalls.

G

Hi Julian,

If BGP is considered desirable for implementing policy, you certainly don't
need to have full route tables loaded locally. The 2600 should be capable
of participating in BGP as a stub router.. An ISP can inject a default
route via BGP and you can filter out all but the routes you may want for
implementing policy. BGP can also generate a conditional default route, so
that if your "primary" default disappears, the other dynamically asserts
itself on the other router or interface. Care must be taken in the
configuration such that your site doesn't allow Internet traffic to simply
pass through from one ISP to the other, but this is basic to configuring
BGP.

There are some layers of complexity when you involve 2 ISPs with BGP that
aren't for the faint of heart and you may be able to accomplish your ends
with less trouble. If you really want to go with BGP, I would pick up a
copy of Sam Halabi's book called Internet Routing Architectures, 2nd
edition. http://www.ciscopress.com/title/157870233X

Not knowing your strategy here, you may be seeking resilience in the form of
2 ISPs and 2 different services, but be sure to consider that the T1 and DSL
would still have a potential single physical point of failure at the point
of entry and in the LEC. Also, is it certain that the DSL ISP offers BGP
over a DSL link?

FWIW,
Robert




"Julian Dragut" <> wrote in message
news:S5bae.87561$7Q4.71669@clgrps13...
> Hi,
>
> I would like to purchase 2 internet connections from 2 different ISP's,
> one
> a DSL line, and the other one a T1, and to use them for common internet
> traffic for my network users(dsl), and the T1 for the application servers
> we're hosting for internal and external clients.
>
> I know there's BGP involved into this design, but the hardware for it it's
> so expensive.....darn; is there anybody out there that tried this
> (successfully) with low level hardware - CISCO 2600 routers, or software?
>
> Are there any other solutions available, ideas?
>
> Julian Dragut
> No matter how crazy it sounds, I'm always up for the challenge
>
>