[c-nsp] MPLS/VPN Loadbalancing with 2 CPE routers

[Nicolas KARP]

Oliver, forget what I said... I've read "will prefer" instead of "will
never prefer" :-(

It's good to know that another provider is using this kind of architecture.
It's not something we want to use for all our customers but this specific
customer has some constraints which require to loadbalance their traffic.

I guess we could also use OSPF and have the same cost for the path CE1 -->
PE1 and the second path CE1 --> CE2 --> PE2. What would be the best in this
case ? eBGP multihop or OSPF with costs ?

Thanks again.

# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
# - -   Nicolas KARP
# - -   Network and Security Engineer
# - -    Email : liste at karp.fr <nicolas at karp.fr>
# - -    Linkedin :  http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolaskarp
# - -    Viadeo : http://www.viadeo.com/fr/profile/nicolas.karp
<http://www.viadeo.com/fr/profile/nicolas.karp%20>
# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




2013/12/21 Nicolas KARP <liste at karp.fr>

> Hi Oliver,
>
>
>
>> This would work (and the caveat seems acceptable), I know of one SP who
>> does this with their VPN customers. just make sure you configure a weight
>> or localpref or something on the standby so you will never prefer an iBGP
>> path over eBGP, or you would run into loops.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for your help, greatly appreciated.
>
> Hmm in this case, I think the second CPE router will have to prefer the
> ebgp path to avoid a loop (instead of iBGP) ?  The packet which is leaving
> CE1 to CE2, destination the MPLS cloud  will have to leave CE2 across the
> eBGP. If CE2 prefers the iBGP, there might be a loop CE1 ---> CE2 ---> CE1
> --> CE2 (if we use a load sharing per packet)...
>
> WHat do you think ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>