[c-nsp] BGP Considerations isolated PoP

[Mark Tohill]

Thanks for your replies.

> If I understand correctly your third pop will not be connected to your existing 2 pops ?
>> Nearly correct. There will be a low-bandwidth connection for management purposes, not nearly enough to carry 'transit' traffic for another PoP.

> In that case you will need to set up IBGP via tunnels , it's not pretty but it'll work.
>> Considering we don't have the inter PoP links necessary to carry traffic for another PoP if a PoP were to lose connectivity/routes, would we still implement iBGP for this third PoP? I take it we would just not announce for POP1, POP2 from intended POP3.

Are there any considerations for running iBGP on a low-bandwidth link?

Thanks
Mark.

-----Original Message-----
From: Primoz Jeroncic [mailto:jp at softnet.si] 
Sent: 14 September 2005 21:11
To: Brian Turnbow
Cc: Mark Tohill; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: RE: [c-nsp] BGP Considerations isolated PoP

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Brian Turnbow wrote:

> If I understand correctly your third pop will not be connected to your existing 2 pops ?
> In that case you will need to set up IBGP via tunnels , it's not pretty but it'll work.
> Or divide your /16 so that the third pop announces part and the other 2 pops announce part and add static routes for connectivity between the POPs.
> Your AS will not get announced back to you from your upstreams in BGP.

It actually can be with "neighbor x.x.x. allowas-in". We have one part of our network
running like this with same AS but different upstream and no direct connection to
main part of our network. It's not nice, it's not as I would wish it would be, but it works.

>
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tohill
> Sent: mercoledì 14 settembre 2005 18.51
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] BGP Considerations isolated PoP
>
> Hi,
>
> We have our public AS announcing our /16 network over 2 PoP's to single
> upstream providers two adjacent PoP's. iBGP configured as it should be.
>
> What are the considerations if a third PoP were to be implemented, yet
> this would, for the time being, be essentially isolated from remainder
> of our network?

Have fun,
Primoz Jeroncic
Support - IP Connectivity & Routing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Softnet d.o.o.  tel:  +386 1 562 31 40   |
Borovec 2       fax:  +386 1 562 18 55   |       1 + 1 = 3
1236 Trzin      primoz(at)softnet.si     | for larger values of 1
Slovenija       http://flea.softnet.si/
-------------------------------------------------------------------