Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > odd BGP Problem

Reply
Thread Tools

odd BGP Problem

 
 
Gary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2008
We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new client
that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2 routers
and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what are
actually the same tier1 routers.

The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should failover
to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.

The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set of
BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are up.

An ASCI Diagram would look like


Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we use
for clients to transit generally
Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions

Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables with
both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables form
the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.


Hope this makes sense.
Thanks
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Barry Margolin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2008
In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new client
> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2 routers
> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what are
> actually the same tier1 routers.
>
> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should failover
> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>
> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set of
> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are up.


This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
routes directly to the tier1 providers.

>
> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>
>
> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we use
> for clients to transit generally
> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>
> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables with
> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables form
> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>
>
> Hope this makes sense.
> Thanks
> Gary


--
Barry Margolin, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Yandy Ramirez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2008
Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions directly
to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path from
cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the routes
received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
received from you.

Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
(even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can really do
is.

1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix) maybe a
loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if both
loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the customers
prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start advertising
The customers prefixes through your connection.

cya


On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
(E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new client
>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2 routers
>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what are
>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>
>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should failover
>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>
>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set of
>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are up.

>
> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>
>>
>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>
>>
>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we use
>> for clients to transit generally
>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>
>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables with
>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables form
>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>
>>
>> Hope this makes sense.
>> Thanks
>> Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008

"Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
> directly
> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path from
> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
> routes
> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
> received from you.
>
> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can really
> do
> is.
>
> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix) maybe
> a
> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if both
> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
> customers
> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
> advertising
> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>
> cya
>
>
> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>> client
>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>> routers
>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what
>>> are
>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>
>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>> failover
>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>
>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set
>>> of
>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are
>>> up.

>>
>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>
>>>
>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>
>>>
>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we
>>> use
>>> for clients to transit generally
>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>
>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables
>>> with
>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables
>>> form
>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>> Thanks
>>> Gary

>
>


Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to the
same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all sessions
and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to only
come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any reason
(cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
sessions.

Hope that calrifies?
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
Yandy Ramirez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008
That makes I allot easier.
Is the /24 connected on one of those interface on the two routers you want?
Or is it being subneted below that point?

1) If it is connected to an interface (like an ethernet interface on both
routers) then on both routers you can do something like.

Ip prefix-list CONN-TO-BGP permti x.x.x.x/24

Route-map CONN-TO-BGP permit 150
match ip address prefix-list CONN-TO-BGP
set origin igp
set community "your community values here"
!
Router bgp xxxx
redistribute connected route-map CONN-TO-BGP
!
Now since your /19 and /24 are separate networks closest match always win,
since your only advertising /24 from two routers that will always be the
path. And if that goes down you stop advertising /24 but still have the /19
from other sessions.

Now if the /24 is not directly connected but subneted below that, then the
config is pretty much the same except change it around for redistributing
static to bgp and have a static route....

Ip route x.x.x.x 255.255.255.0 "next-hop-here"

And that's it. If you don't know how to redistribute statics let me know,
its pretty much the same except for the redistribution command.

Hope that helps.



On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>> directly
>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path from
>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>> routes
>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
>> received from you.
>>
>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can really
>> do
>> is.
>>
>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix) maybe
>> a
>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if both
>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>> customers
>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>> advertising
>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>
>> cya
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>> client
>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>> routers
>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what
>>>> are
>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>
>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>> failover
>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>
>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set
>>>> of
>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we
>>>> use
>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>
>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables
>>>> with
>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables
>>>> form
>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Gary

>>
>>

>
> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to the
> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all sessions
> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to only
> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any reason
> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
> sessions.
>
> Hope that calrifies?
> Gary
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Yandy Ramirez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008
One more thing, just make soure your transit provider opens up its filter
and allows that /24 through. Should not be a big concern for them to do so.


On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>> directly
>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path from
>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>> routes
>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
>> received from you.
>>
>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can really
>> do
>> is.
>>
>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix) maybe
>> a
>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if both
>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>> customers
>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>> advertising
>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>
>> cya
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>> client
>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>> routers
>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what
>>>> are
>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>
>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>> failover
>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>
>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via his
>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if his
>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set
>>>> of
>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his are
>>>> up.
>>>
>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we
>>>> use
>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier 1
>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>
>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables
>>>> with
>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing tables
>>>> form
>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Gary

>>
>>

>
> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to the
> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all sessions
> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to only
> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any reason
> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
> sessions.
>
> Hope that calrifies?
> Gary
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008

"Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C3E24B4A.792A%(E-Mail Removed)...
> One more thing, just make soure your transit provider opens up its filter
> and allows that /24 through. Should not be a big concern for them to do
> so.
>
>
> On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>>> directly
>>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path
>>> from
>>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>>> routes
>>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
>>> received from you.
>>>
>>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
>>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can
>>> really
>>> do
>>> is.
>>>
>>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix)
>>> maybe
>>> a
>>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
>>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if
>>> both
>>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>>> customers
>>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>>> advertising
>>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>>
>>> cya
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>>> client
>>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>>> routers
>>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what
>>>>> are
>>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>>> failover
>>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via
>>>>> his
>>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if
>>>>> his
>>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set
>>>>> of
>>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his
>>>>> are
>>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
>>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we
>>>>> use
>>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier
>>>>> 1
>>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>>
>>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables
>>>>> with
>>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing
>>>>> tables
>>>>> form
>>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Gary
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to the
>> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all
>> sessions
>> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to only
>> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any
>> reason
>> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
>> sessions.
>>
>> Hope that calrifies?
>> Gary
>>
>>

>
>


Thanks. I will test that. I did try MED's and that seems ot have worked.
When we check the advertised routes on the upstream provider the /24 has a
Metric of zero for the preferred BGP session and all other sessions on the
upstream are 50 which is the MED we applied and inbound routing looks good.
It does come through the correct upstream router AND BGP session to us.

Is your method superior - Why?

Also how do I ensure that the locally connected /24 (A Cisco ASA5500 will
arp the whole /24) only routes out through the same BGP session. 99.99% of
traffic will be inbound and I assume will depart the way it came, but what
about sessions initiated inside the firewall within the /24. I need to force
that traffic to only go out one of the BGP sessions but failover should that
BGP session fail.

Thanks
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
Yandy Ramirez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008
One method is not really superior over the other.
First I will say ( the network command under bgp is for wusses.. Lol j/k )
The only reason that advertising a /24 out of your 2 sessions that you want
and only advertising a /19 out of all of them including the 2 that advertise
the /24, the only reason this is considered best practice is because you
cannot count on your providers trusting your MED values, maybe someone
complains and they change their local-pref higher out one of the other 4
sessions, oops their goes your MED.

MED is useful in certain situations but my recommendation stays as it was.


With both /24 and /19 you have full routing and high availability should
something fail.

Now as far as the arp goes, as long as your internal routing is properly
configured the incoming traffic should not affect your firewall from arping
for the correct subnet (The internet is hardly symmetrical to begin with).

Hope that helps.


On 2/21/08 12:32 AM, in article I18vj.3626$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:C3E24B4A.792A%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> One more thing, just make soure your transit provider opens up its filter
>> and allows that /24 through. Should not be a big concern for them to do
>> so.
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>>>> directly
>>>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path
>>>> from
>>>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>>>> routes
>>>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the prefixes
>>>> received from you.
>>>>
>>>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try AS-PREPEND
>>>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>>>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>>>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can
>>>> really
>>>> do
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix)
>>>> maybe
>>>> a
>>>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise the
>>>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if
>>>> both
>>>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>>>> customers
>>>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>>>> advertising
>>>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>>>
>>>> cya
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>>>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry Margolin"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a single
>>>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>>>> client
>>>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>>>> routers
>>>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to what
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the tier1
>>>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>>>> failover
>>>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one set
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than the
>>>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x Tier1
>>>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which we
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x Tier
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while up
>>>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing tables
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing
>>>>>> tables
>>>>>> form
>>>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to the
>>> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all
>>> sessions
>>> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to only
>>> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any
>>> reason
>>> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
>>> sessions.
>>>
>>> Hope that calrifies?
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

>
> Thanks. I will test that. I did try MED's and that seems ot have worked.
> When we check the advertised routes on the upstream provider the /24 has a
> Metric of zero for the preferred BGP session and all other sessions on the
> upstream are 50 which is the MED we applied and inbound routing looks good.
> It does come through the correct upstream router AND BGP session to us.
>
> Is your method superior - Why?
>
> Also how do I ensure that the locally connected /24 (A Cisco ASA5500 will
> arp the whole /24) only routes out through the same BGP session. 99.99% of
> traffic will be inbound and I assume will depart the way it came, but what
> about sessions initiated inside the firewall within the /24. I need to force
> that traffic to only go out one of the BGP sessions but failover should that
> BGP session fail.
>
> Thanks
> Gary
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008

"Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C3E27CEB.84F4%(E-Mail Removed)...
> One method is not really superior over the other.
> First I will say ( the network command under bgp is for wusses.. Lol j/k )
> The only reason that advertising a /24 out of your 2 sessions that you
> want
> and only advertising a /19 out of all of them including the 2 that
> advertise
> the /24, the only reason this is considered best practice is because you
> cannot count on your providers trusting your MED values, maybe someone
> complains and they change their local-pref higher out one of the other 4
> sessions, oops their goes your MED.
>
> MED is useful in certain situations but my recommendation stays as it was.
>
>
> With both /24 and /19 you have full routing and high availability should
> something fail.
>
> Now as far as the arp goes, as long as your internal routing is properly
> configured the incoming traffic should not affect your firewall from
> arping
> for the correct subnet (The internet is hardly symmetrical to begin with).
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
> On 2/21/08 12:32 AM, in article I18vj.3626$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:C3E24B4A.792A%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> One more thing, just make soure your transit provider opens up its
>>> filter
>>> and allows that /24 through. Should not be a big concern for them to do
>>> so.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>>>>> directly
>>>>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path
>>>>> from
>>>>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>>>>> routes
>>>>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the
>>>>> prefixes
>>>>> received from you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try
>>>>> AS-PREPEND
>>>>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>>>>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>>>>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can
>>>>> really
>>>>> do
>>>>> is.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix)
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> a
>>>>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise
>>>>> the
>>>>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if
>>>>> both
>>>>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>>>>> customers
>>>>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>>>>> advertising
>>>>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> cya
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>>>>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry
>>>>> Margolin"
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>>>>> routers
>>>>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the
>>>>>>> tier1
>>>>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>>>>> failover
>>>>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one
>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>>>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x
>>>>>>> Tier1
>>>>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x
>>>>>>> Tier
>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing
>>>>>>> tables
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing
>>>>>>> tables
>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to
>>>> the
>>>> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all
>>>> sessions
>>>> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to
>>>> only
>>>> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any
>>>> reason
>>>> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
>>>> sessions.
>>>>
>>>> Hope that calrifies?
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Thanks. I will test that. I did try MED's and that seems ot have worked.
>> When we check the advertised routes on the upstream provider the /24 has
>> a
>> Metric of zero for the preferred BGP session and all other sessions on
>> the
>> upstream are 50 which is the MED we applied and inbound routing looks
>> good.
>> It does come through the correct upstream router AND BGP session to us.
>>
>> Is your method superior - Why?
>>
>> Also how do I ensure that the locally connected /24 (A Cisco ASA5500 will
>> arp the whole /24) only routes out through the same BGP session. 99.99%
>> of
>> traffic will be inbound and I assume will depart the way it came, but
>> what
>> about sessions initiated inside the firewall within the /24. I need to
>> force
>> that traffic to only go out one of the BGP sessions but failover should
>> that
>> BGP session fail.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gary
>>
>>

>
>

I have confused this again. Only the /24 should use this dedicated peering
to the upstream. That includes inbound and outbound traffic. I think now all
sessions initiated externally will come doen the right connection so it can
be easily metered and charged, but what about outbound connections from the
/24. How do I force them to ONLY use a particular peering while is is up.

It is almost like I want to VLAN then to a BGP session.
Gary


 
Reply With Quote
 
Yandy Ramirez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2008
Simple,

Policy based routing. Set ip next-hop.
This is done in conjuction with standard or extended acls and route-maps.

Sample.

Access-list 3 permit 200.1.1.0 0.0.0.255

Route-map POLICY-ROUTE permit 100
match ip address 3
set Ip next-hop 200.1.2.2

Interface f0/0
desc outside
ip add 200.1.2.1 255.255.255.0
!
Inteface f0/1
desc inside
ip add 200.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip policy route-map POLICY-ROUTE
!


On 2/21/08 10:21 AM, in article 2Ggvj.529$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:C3E27CEB.84F4%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> One method is not really superior over the other.
>> First I will say ( the network command under bgp is for wusses.. Lol j/k )
>> The only reason that advertising a /24 out of your 2 sessions that you
>> want
>> and only advertising a /19 out of all of them including the 2 that
>> advertise
>> the /24, the only reason this is considered best practice is because you
>> cannot count on your providers trusting your MED values, maybe someone
>> complains and they change their local-pref higher out one of the other 4
>> sessions, oops their goes your MED.
>>
>> MED is useful in certain situations but my recommendation stays as it was.
>>
>>
>> With both /24 and /19 you have full routing and high availability should
>> something fail.
>>
>> Now as far as the arp goes, as long as your internal routing is properly
>> configured the incoming traffic should not affect your firewall from
>> arping
>> for the correct subnet (The internet is hardly symmetrical to begin with).
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/08 12:32 AM, in article I18vj.3626$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:C3E24B4A.792A%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> One more thing, just make soure your transit provider opens up its
>>>> filter
>>>> and allows that /24 through. Should not be a big concern for them to do
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/08 8:41 PM, in article VE4vj.5556$(E-Mail Removed), "Gary"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Yandy Ramirez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C3E12033.6CCE%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> Well having the customer with a separate x-connect and bgp sessions
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>> to the Transit providers should automatically have a shorter as-path
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> cust-to-provider. But the customer can set a higher local-pref on the
>>>>>> routes
>>>>>> received from those two neighbors and a lower local-pref to the
>>>>>> prefixes
>>>>>> received from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now controlling inbound traffic is a bit trickier you can try
>>>>>> AS-PREPEND
>>>>>> (even though technically it should route automatically to his direct
>>>>>> connection) but that's beyond your control as the providers can set
>>>>>> LOCAL-PREF on their side and their goes that idea. So what you can
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) BGP conditional advertisement (where you track a certain prefix)
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> loopback on the customer routers (2 in this case) and only advertise
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> customers prefixes to the providers through your link if and only if
>>>>>> both
>>>>>> loopbacks go down. That way the provider will really only see the
>>>>>> customers
>>>>>> prefixes through their link unless it goes down, then you start
>>>>>> advertising
>>>>>> The customers prefixes through your connection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/19/08 11:51 PM, in article
>>>>>> (E-Mail Removed), "Barry
>>>>>> Margolin"
>>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <%6Luj.3489$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>> "Gary" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have a router connected to 2 x tier1 provider routers over a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> x-connect and we run BGP to them no problems. We have taken on a new
>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>> that wants their own dedicated cable and BGP session to the same 2
>>>>>>>> routers
>>>>>>>> and a second x-connect is now in and 2 new BGP sessions are up to
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> actually the same tier1 routers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The client wants his address space routed over his cable to the
>>>>>>>> tier1
>>>>>>>> provider unless that cable fails in which case the traffic should
>>>>>>>> failover
>>>>>>>> to our x-connect to the tier1 provider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is how do I get the customers traffic to ONLY leave via
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> x-connect cable/BGP sessions while it is up but failover to ours if
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> fails. Also how do I get the inbound traffic to ONLY come down one
>>>>>>>> set
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> BGP sessions (the clients) as opposed to our BGP sessions while his
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should happen automatically. The routes through your x-connect
>>>>>>> should have your ASN in the AS path, which will make it longer than
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> routes directly to the tier1 providers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An ASCI Diagram would look like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our Router A x------------our x-connect------------------------x
>>>>>>>> Tier1
>>>>>>>> Router A & B - This carries to BGP sessions on a small subnet which
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> for clients to transit generally
>>>>>>>> Our Router A x------------client x-connect----------------------x
>>>>>>>> Tier
>>>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>>> Router A & B- This should only carry client subnet in and out while
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> otherwise failover to our cable and BGP sessions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both cables carry 2 BGP peering sessions receivong full routing
>>>>>>>> tables
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> both Tier1 Router A and B so in total we now gave 4 full routing
>>>>>>>> tables
>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>> the same Tier1 provider on Our Router A.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this makes sense.
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybee I explained this badly. We have 6 full BGP peering sessions to
>>>>> the
>>>>> same TIER1 Provider to different routers. We announce a /19 on all
>>>>> sessions
>>>>> and all works well. Now we want a particular /24 within that /19 to
>>>>> only
>>>>> come down 2 of the BGP Peering sessions. Should these 2 fail for any
>>>>> reason
>>>>> (cable break) we want the /24 to come in any of the remaining 4 BGP
>>>>> sessions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope that calrifies?
>>>>> Gary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. I will test that. I did try MED's and that seems ot have worked.
>>> When we check the advertised routes on the upstream provider the /24 has
>>> a
>>> Metric of zero for the preferred BGP session and all other sessions on
>>> the
>>> upstream are 50 which is the MED we applied and inbound routing looks
>>> good.
>>> It does come through the correct upstream router AND BGP session to us.
>>>
>>> Is your method superior - Why?
>>>
>>> Also how do I ensure that the locally connected /24 (A Cisco ASA5500 will
>>> arp the whole /24) only routes out through the same BGP session. 99.99%
>>> of
>>> traffic will be inbound and I assume will depart the way it came, but
>>> what
>>> about sessions initiated inside the firewall within the /24. I need to
>>> force
>>> that traffic to only go out one of the BGP sessions but failover should
>>> that
>>> BGP session fail.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>

>>
>>

> I have confused this again. Only the /24 should use this dedicated peering
> to the upstream. That includes inbound and outbound traffic. I think now all
> sessions initiated externally will come doen the right connection so it can
> be easily metered and charged, but what about outbound connections from the
> /24. How do I force them to ONLY use a particular peering while is is up.
>
> It is almost like I want to VLAN then to a BGP session.
> Gary
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To BGP or not to BGP (multihoming with ISPs over uneven links speed)?!? papi Cisco 4 09-08-2009 02:45 AM
Odd behavior with odd code Michael Speer C Programming 33 02-18-2007 07:31 AM
Difference between "bgp dampening" and "bgp bestpath dampening" harald rüger Cisco 0 10-25-2004 04:07 PM
OSPF & BGP interaction.. Tricky problem? or just stupid.. Kris Cisco 2 06-20-2004 04:01 PM
BGP and NAT... interesting problem Gollum Cisco 3 12-17-2003 06:22 PM



Advertisments