At 04:01 PM 6/18/2002 +0530, pankaj wrote:
>More easier solution is as Nick and Philip said.
>
>Use static route for eachother's /19 pointing to your router. Or just
>use default route pointing to ur router.
>Thats enough for the situation u describe
Nick wrote "/19 is actually for two separate businesses; one a tier-2 ISP and
the other VoIP provider"
I cant imagine a tier-2 ISP running statics and defaults. They dont have a
backbone
but certainly they should be aware of ups and downs of Internet routes.
Moreover if
Nick Kraal's company decided to run MPLS, this customer would be a perfect
candidate
for Carrier Supporting Carriers CsC described at.
My 2c
Zaheer
>--pankaj
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Zaheer Aziz" <zaziz@cisco.com>
>To: "Nick Kraal" <nick@arc.net.my>
>Cc: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 10:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [nsp] BGP loop detection
>
>
> > At 10:17 PM 6/17/2002 +0800, Nick Kraal wrote:
> >
> > Another option,if you continue to run EBGP with them, is to have
>them
> > configure
> >
> > neighbor EBGP-address allowas-in
> >
> > at their EBGP boxes peering with you.
> >
> > This will accept paths with local as in the AS_PATH. It is mainly
>used in
> > MPLS-VPN scenarios but can certainly be applicable here.
> >
> > Zaheer
> > >We have a customer that has transit services from us. They have
>split their
> > >network into two /19 and run BGP with us at two different
>locations. Each
> > >/19 is actually for two seperate businesses; one a tier-2 ISP and
>the other
> > >VoIP provider. Two physically sperate networks are also running the
>same ASN
> > >and are to peer with each other via our network. There is no
>internal
> > >interconnectivity between them or any IGP running.
> > >
> > >The problem lies in that to reach each other they need to 'transit'
>via our
> > >network and according to BGP, one cannot announce back the client
>prefixes
> > >learnt from the other network and vice versa as both of them are
>running the
> > >same ASN. This is to prevent routing loops.
> > >
> > >In this case is there a method to overwrite this so that the first
>/19
> > >network will be able to reach the second /19 network via ours?
> > >
> > >Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > >-nick/
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:00 EDT