[47753] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (PS)
Sun May 12 16:57:37 2002
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:56:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: PS <pschultz@pschultz.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205121257280.22855-100000@penguin.graphidelix.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205121642210.4190-100000@elvis.kravshera.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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
