[c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links

[Brian Turnbow]

You can point a static to a tunnel interface, for the customers routes. 
However all traffic from the router will then use the tunnel,(be it mpls,gre ecc.). 
This does not however map the specific traffic  only router wide traffic. Besides PBR the only other thing that comes to mind for mapping specific traffic is to use IPSEC and map with crypto maps. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Zaheer Aziz [mailto:zaziz at cisco.com] 
Sent: martedì 23 novembre 2004 18.23
To: Brian Turnbow
Cc: Zaheer Aziz; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links

At 05:55 PM 11/23/2004 +0100, Brian Turnbow wrote:
>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.

I am assuming you are talking about MPLS Traffic Engineering Tunnels.
How are you going to map right kind of traffic to right Tunnel(from Link A and B to Link C).
You would have to use some kind of PBR which we are trying to avoid.

Thanks
Zaheer


>-----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/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/