[154127] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: please helpconfederation and ibgp question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy)
Tue Jun 26 19:55:07 2012
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy <randy_94108@yahoo.com>
To: Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiP322VGQmn8kDYQ6DPpaeMCAhW2pgRZwgX7P=fvro28ExYJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--- On Tue, 6/26/12, Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000@gmail.com>
> Subject: please helpconfederation and ibgp question
> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 12:51 PM
> Hi all
>=20
> I would like to ask questions aboutconfederation and ibgp
>=20
> We know confederation from nanog achieve 101,102 and setup
> lab.
> bgp and ibgp can work properly=A0 but not sure we are
> doing right.
>=20
> We have quesions
>=20
> 1/=A0 for the annoucing networks, do we have to announce
> it in border routers?
> eg: border routers.=A0 66.59.128.0/22
> but all ibgp routers are already announcing networks
> individually in
> ibgp Routers
> eg: Router A: 66.59.128.0/24, Router B: 66.59.129.0/24,
> Router C:
> 66.59.130.0/24, Router D: 66.59.131.128/25
>=20
> In our labs, it can work. but we would like to know the
> setting is
> correct. or any announcing overlapping when announcing in
> broder
> Router and all individual ibgp routers
>=20
> 2/ But if it is not right to announce /22 in broder routers,
> let
> Router A,B,C, D announce it in 4 separate networks.=A0 ls
> it ok too?
> in the lab, the bgp can work too. but i read the bgp doc
> that it
> prefers us to announce it in /22 instead of 4 seperate one?
>=20
> 3/ in the border routers, we take out some ip from network
> 66.59.131.0/24 (eg: 66.59.131.0/28, 66.59.131.16/28) to
> interconnected
> to Router A, B, C and D
> We don't know which one is good for use in bgp
> configuration
>=20
> redistributed connected
> or
> network 66.59.131.0/28
> network 66.59.131.16/28
>=20
> If using network command "network 66.59.131.0/28, network
> 66.59.131.0/28" to let communicate between ibgp, there might
> have
> overlapping too as we already announcing=A0
> 66.59.128.0/22. in the
> border router, there might have
>=20
> network 66.59.128.0/22
> network 66.59.131.0/28
> network 66.59.131.16/28
>=20
> ls the command "redistributed connect" better? but this is
> border
> Router.=A0 We concern it will effect the upstream using
> redistributed
> connect
>=20
> Please help
>=20
> Thank you so much
>=20
Deric-
I don't mean to sound rude but I think it is time you asked $Employer for r=
outing/switching/best-practices training. It will help you understand what =
you do and why you do it.
The labs, and NANOG presentations are a good start.
./Randy
