[c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering

[Robert E.Seastrom]

What problem are you trying to solve by doing this?  It seems to me
that you're not only paying for your bandwidth twice (once via arbinet
and once via your current upstream provider), but you aren't getting
any diversity out of it.  Are you trying to appear to be bigger than
you actually are?  Meet a requirement for PI space?

---Rob


Kanagaraj Krishna <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:

> We were looking at Arbinet(US) to setup our L2TP tunnel BGP session. They have 
> a few major players connected to them. For your information we are planning to 
> run this tunnel through on our current upstream provider. Any thoughts on 
> these? Thanks
>
> Kana
>
>> 
>> You still have to get the bits there somehow, which is a major
>> component of the price differential between Malaysia and the US.  How
>> were you planning to do that?
>> 
>>                                         ---Rob
>> 
>> 
>> "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > The reason why this was brought up by the management, is related to the IP
>> > pricing difference between US and Asia. We are based in Malaysia and the
>> > pricing charged by international upstream providers (local POP) is very
>> > expensive. L2TP is an alternative to connect with them directly in
>> US/Europe
>> > at a cheaper price minus the cost of having a direct IPLC.
>> >
>> > Fiancial budget = Management .......  :-)
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Kanagaraj Krishna
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon at ttec.com>
>> > To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my>
>> > Cc: "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>; <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:52 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why would you do L2TP and not GRE?
>> >>
>> >> If you have enough IP routing to put up a working l2tp tunnel, then you
>> >> have enough to do multihop ebgp.
>> >>
>> >> If your ip routing and your desired BGP peering is running over a
>> >> different provider, then a tunnel could be neccessary to avoid routing
>> >> loops.
>> >>
>> >> The only gain you could possibly have with this setup is if Provider A
>> >> (the route to provider B) is cheap/fast/reliable to get to B but nowhere
>> >> else, and provider B is cheap/fast/reliable to get everywhere else.
>> >>
>> >> Otherwise, if you are connected to your new provider, tunneling shouldnt
>> >> even enter the picture.
>> >>
>> >> Now as an aside, if you are a network engineer that is getting stumped
>> >> by technical crap spewed from management, something is very wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Either you dont know you business or your management cant mind theirs.
>> >>
>> >> Kanagaraj Krishna wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Its one option suggested by my management for our next upstream
>> provider
>> > (@
>> >> > getting bandwidth).  I need to understand the pros and cons of the
>> > running
>> >> > BGP on a L2TP tunnel like overhead, link quality etc, before moving any
>> >> > further. I found stuff on L2TP but not related to BGP. Hope to get more
>> >> > inputs. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Kana
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Robert E.Seastrom" <rs at seastrom.com>
>> >> > To: "Kanagaraj Krishna" <kanagaraj at aims.com.my>
>> >> > Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:04 AM
>> >> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] L2TP tunnel for BGP peering
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Kanagaraj Krishna <kanagaraj at aims.com.my> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Hi,
>> >> >>>    Due to cost issues tied to direct IPLC, we are thinking of running
>> >> >>
>> >> >>you mean international private leased circuits?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>BGP sessions with upstream providers through L2TP tunnels. It would be
>> >> >>>very helpful,  if anyone in the group share advises on the pros and
>> >> >>>cons of this setup. A few other doubts are:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>this sounds dodgy to me and like a bad plan, but read on...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>- We have concerns on the stability of the virtual link like quality
>> >> >>>drop etc. Are there any mechanism to improve this as drop of  tunnel
>> >> >>>would cause BGP flapping/dampening ?
>> >> >>>- What would be the overhead on the bandwidth throughtput?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>what problem exactly are you trying to solve here?  you have to get
>> >> >>bandwidth from somewhere...  is the problem that you can't get frame
>> >> >>relay or other appropriate technology via vsat or terrestrial circuit
>> >> >>at a reasonable price?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>                                        ---rob
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>We would like to get more input before looking into further. Thanks
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Regards,
>> >> >>>Kanagaraj Krishna
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>_______________________________________________
>> >> >>>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/
>> 
>
>
> -- 
> Kanagaraj Krishna
> Senior Network Engineer
> Network Engineering
> Applied Information Management Services Sdn. Bhd.
> (AIMS Sdn. Bhd.)
> Ground Floor, Menara Aik Hua,
> Changkat Raja Chulan,
> 50200 Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.
>
> Tel     : +603-20314988 Ext : 395
> Mobile  :  012-3266151 
> Fax     : +603-20318948
> Email   : kanagaraj at aims.com.my