[nsp] eBGP routes not balancing
gert at greenie.muc.de
Tue Nov 18 04:16:58 EST 2003
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:59:02PM -0800, Steve Francis wrote:
> One way I've made the load balancing more equal in such situations is to
> apply a route map to one of the peers, that says if the route learned is
> for an IP in the range 0.0.0.0 through 22.214.171.124, it has a
> local_pref of 90; everything else from that peer has a local_pref of 110.
> The local_pref of the other peer will have the default of 100.
Doing that means your BGP setup could as well be replaced by two
ip route 0.0.0.0 126.96.36.199 <isp1>
ip route 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 <isp2>
as setting local-pref will override everything else, including (and most
important) path length...
So if ISP 1 is presenting you a veeeeeeeerrry long path to, say,
220.127.116.11/8, and ISP 2 has really top connectivity to that network, your
policy will still force out everything via ISP 1.
A more reasonable approach would be to achieve the same goal using MED
(and "bgp always-compare-med"). That way, the manual balancing will only
affect networks that you see over equal-length paths.
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
More information about the cisco-nsp