6 messages in net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp[c-nsp] iBGP - Multihoming ideas
FromSent OnAttachments
John GitauJan 26, 2005 3:30 am 
Bruce PinskyJan 26, 2005 3:32 pm 
John GitauJan 27, 2005 12:53 am 
Mark TinkaJan 27, 2005 5:08 am 
John GitauJan 28, 2005 12:58 am 
Mark TinkaJan 28, 2005 2:48 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:[c-nsp] iBGP - Multihoming ideasActions...
From:John Gitau (git@wananchi.com)
Date:Jan 28, 2005 12:58:11 am
List:net.nether.puck.cisco-nsp

-> Not sure I understand what you mean by 'everyting'. Do you -> mean full Internet routes, partial routes, whatever B and HQ -> have, IXP routes, e.t.c.?

No not full internet routes, actually come to think of it I dont think even my upstream provider gets those, so we point a default route to them at the HQ, we only run BGP with them so they can further advertise our routes to whomever they get their bandwidth from.

-> Okay, is this the way you have designed it, that you only -> have partial routes in B and HQ, or is this the problem you -> are trying to solve? What exactly do you need B and HQ to send to A?

Im fishing for ideas on how to go about the whole setup. By everything I meant everything B and HQ have, then Router A decides how best to send the traffic. The only problem in this case is since those two routers don't have full internet routes either, they'd need to both send/announce a default route to router A (thats for anyone trying to reach a destination not on HQ and B's routing tables) Which works okay at the moment. I was just worried for when I need to add more routers.

**gitau