[c-nsp] Faster BGP Failover

[Ryan Wilkins]

My question is why would you not consider it?  I support a couple ISPs and am considering asking AboveNet and Cogent to run BFD with one of the ISPs where there are two BGP sessions established to each upstream already.  Everything I've read seems to indicate that BFD decreases the failover time and with less resources than using low timers on BGP to do the same thing.  I also have a customer with two wireless links to the same ISP, one 1 Gbps link that quits working when it rains heavily and a 300 Mbps link that doesn't quit in the heavy rains come.  I've configured the customer to run BGP (default route) with BFD for failover purposes and it works beautifully.  I just trying to understand why ISPs wouldn't or shouldn't do this.  Any insights?


On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Mark Tinka <mtinka at globaltransit.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 09:20:53 PM Vincent Aniello 
> wrote:
> 
>>> From a technical perspective they aren't, but I have
>>> never seen an ISP offer BFD.
> 
> We generally don't offer customer's BFD over eBGP sessions. 
> Then again, in the last 4 years or so, we've probably only 
> had one request, and that didn't go through because the 
> customer's router didn't have the requisite code.
> 
> We are, however, considering running BFD for eBGP with one 
> of our customers that sends IPTv traffic into our Multicast 
> network for onward delivery to their subscribers. Of course, 
> IPTv is a much more sensitive application where we could 
> make the exception, but otherwise wouldn't look at deploying 
> it with ordinary customers.
> 
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/