[126601] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mikrotik BGP Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Mon May 24 11:51:02 2010
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:50:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE09EA4667@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
(George Bonser's message of "Mon, 24 May 2010 08:48:00 -0700")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* George Bonser:
>> Does this really work that well? Won't you still get loops or
>> blackholes unless the eBGP routes on all border routers are identical?
>
> As opposed to what, injecting the entire BGP table into your igp?
As opposed to just injecting defaults.
> Maybe there is a reason the legacy operator said both uplinks must be
> connected to the same router. If the two locations are not
> interconnected, that would be one reason. I don't believe the original
> poster described their internal connectivity.
There was a follow-up that mentioned that there's a direct connection,
so they just have to make the other paths infeasible.
