RES: [c-nsp] Different Traffic thru BGP links

[Sam Stickland]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Zaheer Aziz wrote:

> At 05:07 PM 11/23/2004 -0200, BRA-SAO-Tomaiz,Anderson Goncalves wrote:
>> Well..I'm gonna try to explain better. Tell me if I'm not clear again ;)
>
> Now I have a much better picture of your network. I have to work with few 
> assumptions/questions
>
> 1)your customers are not on the same router where Provider A and B are
> 2)On the box where you have Provider A and B, are there other external 
> connections?
> 3)Your demandy Customer is connected to router name C1 and Provider A and B 
> are connected on
>   router P
>
> You are absolutely right about using PBR as a solution but expensive one.

How expensive/difficult would PBR be? There's a similar situation I've 
come up against in our network.

Since we tag all routes with communities at ingress it seems plausible to 
set the next hop based on the community value, but that raises two 
questions:

1) Can the next-hop reachibility be taken into account in the route-map?

In

route-map PBR-Route permit 10
   match community local-peers
   set ip next-hop a.b.c.d

If the next hop isn't reachable will it be set? If it isn't will the next 
clause in a route-map be executed?

2) What PBR stuff is currently hardware routed on a Sup2/PFC2/MFSC2 combo?
I've got a suspicion that the the route-map must only contain next-hop 
match clauses to be hardware switched.

Sam