[c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links

[Brian Turnbow]

If you use traffic shaping tunnels you don't need the VRFs to seperate the traffic
So  you could retain the redundancy, but this would work only if you terminate 
On 2 different routers. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Zaheer Aziz [mailto:zaziz at cisco.com] 
Sent: martedì 23 novembre 2004 17.29
To: Brian Turnbow
Cc: Zaheer Aziz; BRA-SAO-Tomaiz,Anderson Goncalves; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links

At 04:43 PM 11/23/2004 +0100, Brian Turnbow wrote:
>
>If your using 2 routers twords the customer you can set up traffic 
>shaping tunnels to each router using MPLS, one for the direct peer 
>traffic, one for internet and use local weight to route twords the 
>customer, that way you could still have redundancy

if you use VRFs to separate link A,B, and C then it is difficult to fall back to global routing table that is where the redundancy issue comes up.
Perhaps Anderson should explain his topology a bit more(diagram) so we would all be on the same page. Currently we are not.

Thanks
Zaheer


>-----Original Message-----
>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Zaheer Aziz
>Sent: martedì 23 novembre 2004 16.08
>To: BRA-SAO-Tomaiz,Anderson Goncalves
>Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links
>Importance: High
>
>At 04:23 PM 11/22/2004 -0200, BRA-SAO-Tomaiz,Anderson Goncalves wrote:
> >Hi Guys,
>
>
>This is how I understood your problem,
>
>You have ISP connections on Link C and D.
>
>You have two providers on say link A and B that must use Link C of your ISP.
>
>Link D of your ISP must only be used by your customers and others for 
>general Internet traffic.
>
>PBR on A and B was your first thought but due to high amount on traffic 
>on Link A and B, it could be an issue.
>
>You could use MPLS_VPN and put A, B and C in a VRF but you must 
>understand that you will loose redundancy, for not using link D in case 
>of failures on C. You could solve this with lots of vrf aware statics 
>as backups but it may not scale.
>
>If my understanding of your topology is right then Local_pref that 
>others have suggested will not work because all traffic will follow 
>Link C which is what you dont desire.
>
>Thanks
>Zaheer
>
>
> >I have a situation where an ISP (running BGP) will have two links 
> >with my AS backbone.
> >In one of them it must allow to pass only peering traffic (from two 
> >other providers that I have direct connection) and thru the other one 
> >normal internet traffic.
> >To route traffic inbound my AS is simple. Only using local-preference 
> >in the BGP at the customer side, but the problem is how to route 
> >traffic outbound my AS to the customer side, since the prefixes 
> >announced are keeped at the same routing table and are the same on 
> >both
> links.
> >Use PBR is not desirable, cause there are too many prefixes and to 
> >much traffic thru these connections. I'm also running MPLS VPN in my 
> >backbone, if it has some solution based on this.
> >
> >Does anyone has a solution or see it before?
> >
> >Thanks for help!
> >
> >Anderson
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/