default-route will only be an effective solution if their customer is not getting BGP routes from any other provider. Otherwise, everything will point towards the BGP routes learned through the other provider(s), and the default route will not be used.
Ahmer Ghazi
-----Original Message-----
From: pankaj [mailto:pankaj@worldgatein.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:32 PM
To: Zaheer Aziz
Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [nsp] BGP loop detection
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
--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 - 04:13:47 EDT