Re: [isp-bgp] Route advertisement problem

[Pete Templin <petelists@templin.org>]

Craig Baird wrote:

> Now here's the dilemma: If Wireless link 1 goes down, things will be fine.  
> Edge router A will stop announcing 1.1.1.0/24 to AT&T because it will no 
> longer have a route to any 1.1.1.x networks.  However, in the event that 
> Wireless link 2 goes down, Edge router A will continue to announce the 
> 1.1.1.0/24 route to AT&T because it can still see the 1.1.1.0/26 network.  
> Even though it cannot see 1.1.1.64/26 or 1.1.1.128/25.  So basically, half of 
> my network will be down if Wireless link 2 dies.  Instead, what I would like 
> to see is traffic to 1.1.1.64/26 and 1.1.1.128/25 come in via MCI, Qwest or 
> Sprint, while still having traffic to 1.1.1.0/26 come in through AT&T.  But 
> the only way I can think of for that to happen would be to announce networks 
> smaller than /24 to my upstreams (which obviously cannot and would not be 
> allowed).
No idea if it truly works, no idea how much production hassle it'd be to 
get it up and running, but you may want to consider a GRE tunnel between 
A and B.  You'll use double the bandwidth during a "wireless link down" 
event, but it will at least reattach your fragmented network.

pt

       _____________________________________________________

       ** ISPCON Fall 2004 - Santa Clara Convention Center **
        ** The ISP and WISP event - http://www.ispcon.com **
** Fill your brain.  Meet the people.  Join the industry gathering. **
      ________________________________________________________






To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.