[c-nsp] two quick bgp questions

[cisconsp at SecureObscure.com]

Regarding 1: Are you using ip tcp path-mtu-discovery? That can drastically
improve convergence time, as default neighbor MSS is around 500 bytes while
it can be improved to ~ 1440 in most environments.

Regarding 2: I can imagine there are many reasons. I use weight exclusively
for iBGP peers. Local preference is usually something I have used facing
eBGP peers as prefixes enter the network and I want to manipulate attributes
for my egress traffic. If I'm applying a route-map to iBGP prefixes (in my
case, vrf import map) its for deterministic routing on that one device only.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Drew Weaver
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:24 AM
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] two quick bgp questions

Hi,

I had two quick BGP questions.

1) I know they're old, but Is it normal for a PRP-2 to take 10-12 minutes to
receive a full routing table from a transit provider? Is there anything you
can do to speed this up? the reason I am asking is because the BGP ROUTER
process is staying up at 90% during the entire time it is downloading the
routes from the provider.

2) Is there a specific reason why when using a route reflector it is better
to use 'weight' rather than 'local preference' for the routes the route
reflector is injecting?

I am reviewing some old configurations that we are using for a 3rd party
device and trying to figure out why we are using weight instead of
local-pref for the routes it is sending into the routers.

thanks,
-Drew


_______________________________________________
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/