nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP and aggregation
From: PS <pschultz () pschultz com>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:56:59 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 12 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:
Don't forget that if both sites use the same as even if the connection link drops they will not be able to see each other over the upstream provider as routers won't take the srutes from the same as. If this isn't a problem don't worry about it. If you wish to preserve connectivity between cities you should have a back-up link or use different as's or gre tunnels:).
Floating statics would be a less-hassle means to continue connectivity (with only 2 locations not much of a scaling issue). Or, if you want, a default route (learned via BGP if possible) going to your upstream(s). An IBGP session sharing full routing information might not be something you want to keep established over a GRE tunnel. - Paul
Current thread:
- Re: BGP and aggregation, (continued)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 11)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Ralph Doncaster (May 11)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen Griffin (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Ralph Doncaster (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Austin Schutz (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen Griffin (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 14)