[149223] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Please help our simple bgp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Jan 31 09:21:13 2012
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACwqZxjBp_R_b-r-9zdB+4xSO1mPmfaYhg8nuDwnt7g2i6RXTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:20:17 -0500
To: Ann Kwok <annkwok80@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Ann Kwok wrote:
> Hello
>=20
> Our router is running simple bgp. "one BGP router, two upstreams (each =
100M
> from ISP A and ISP B)
> We are getting full feeds tables from them
>=20
> We discover the routes is going to ISP A only even the bandwidth 100M =
is
> full
>=20
> Can we set the weight to change to ISP B to use ISP B as preference =
routes?
>=20
> Can the following configuration work?
> What suggest to this weight no. too?
>=20
> neighbor 1.2.3.4 description ISP B
> neighbor 1.2.3.4 remote-as 111
> neighbor 1.2.3.4 weight 2000
>=20
> If this works, how is ISP B upstream connection is down?
>=20
> Can it still be failover to ISP A automatically?
>=20
> If it won't work, Do you have any suggestion?
Please implement an AS-PATH filter on your outbound to your
upstreams blocking yourself from re-annoucing their routes to them.
You can see many of these cases here:
http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi
eg:
41.217.236.0/24 852 3561 6453 15399 15399 15399 174 3491 33770 36997 =
37063 37113
15399 (Wananchi Online Limited) is leaking their upstream (Cogent) =
routes to TATA (6453)
- Jared=
