[c-nsp] Policy Based Routing Question

[Paul Stewart]

Thanks.. yes, I believe this would work but kind of messy ;)  I'm trying to
find a way to set costs based on source/destination of IP addresses I guess
you could say.... never done route-maps in OSPF - is it basically same as
BGP route-maps work?

Paul
 

-----Original Message-----
From: virendra rode // [mailto:virendra.rode at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:26 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Policy Based Routing Question

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Stewart wrote:
> Thanks Roland...
> 
> Site C is the ultimate destination of all traffic (our core network).  
> There is no BGP involved, only OSPF.  The solution is totally within 
> our IP space and managed by ourselves.
> 
> The T1's will be loadbalanced via CEF/OSPF.  The same load balancing 
> applies on the dual ADSL link as well (forgot to mention that 
> earlier).  Load balanced on both sides of both links.
> 
> The reason for wanting this traffic manipulated is that we are 
> providing voice and data services.  The voice services should take a 
> primary route via the T1's and the data services should take a primary
route via the ADSL
> connections.   The thought was to have one router onsite combining all the
> traffic so that if there was an outage, we could dynamically re-route 
> traffic versus having the voice and data totally separate.  To clarify 
> the voice portion, it is VOIP on the T1's, not PRI ;)
> 
> Since all the voice traffic originates and terminates from one 
> particular IP on our core network I was hoping to do this via IP address
or subnet.
- -------------------------------
I guess you could create route-map statement(s) for specific ip range
(ACL) and use next-hop route.

As far as OSPF goes couldn't you filter traffic by setting cost of your link
on each router? In an event of an outage, this will help you move traffic to
good link.

Would a setup like this help?


regards,
/virendra

> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Paul
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Roland Dobbins
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:55 PM
> To: Cisco-NSP Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Policy Based Routing Question
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> 
>> Can I do this with policy based routing? ;)
> 
> Is the ultimate destination of -all- the traffic originating from Site 
> B (or northbound of there) Site A, from your perspective?  Is there 
> any BGP involved, or is Site A participating in your IGP, or
> just taking default from you?  What about Site C, same questions?   
> Also, how are the T1s loadbalanced, and are they loadbalanced on both 
> the PE and CPE sides?
> 
> When you say you want the inbound/outbound traffic to be symmetrical 
> in nature, is this because you require that symmetry because of a 
> stateful firewall or some other kind of policy-enforcement device 
> which needs to see both sides of each conversation?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
> 
>          Words that come from a machine have no soul.
> 
>                        -- Duong Van Ngo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGEzcEpbZvCIJx1bcRAlo9AJ9I2MoSnpcfRriZHynLWh0ChaSmzgCg3vtz
ElAyftuRZ5NYqpnQ4Inzp8o=
=6j8d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----