[c-nsp] Two HUBS-Location Specific Spokes-Redundant to each other

[vasu varma]

Hi Fernando,

Thanks for your response.

I actually thought of doing this, but this is not our standard practice. Is
there any other method of achieving this?

Thanks
Yaswanth


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Fernando Garcia Fernandez <listas at cutre.net
> wrote:

> Hi Yaswanth
>
> I haven’t made it in real life, but doesn’t seem difficult.
>
> What I would do is publish the default route with a different community in
> each hub (i.e. 65000:1 in one hub and 65000:2). In each spoke, depending of
> what you want use the community to set a local preference.
>
> i.e.
>
> in the hub:
>
> router bgp 65000
> network 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0
> neighbor 10.0.0.2 remote-as 65000
> neighbor 10.0.0.2 send—community
> neighbor 10.0.0.2 route-map NY out
>
> route-map NY permit 10
> set community 65000:1
>
>
> in the spoke:
>
> router bgp 65000
> neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 65000
> neighbor 10.0.0.1 route-map hub in
>
> route-map hub permit 10
> match community 65000:1
> set local-preference 130
> route-map hub permit 20
> match community 65000:2
> set local-preference 90
>
> Regards, Fernando
>
> El 26/07/2013, a las 07:41, vasu varma <ypkcar at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Hi Lumbis,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Its not all about latency, latency may vary depending on the backbone
> utilization irrespective of closest location.
>
> I want in such a way that east locations should prefer the default route
> from East HUB with West HUB acting as secondary and west locations should
> prefer the default route from WEST HUB with EAST HUB acting as secondary.
>
> One location may be equally destined in terms of latency or distance but we
> should be able to configure as we desired.
>
> Regards
> Yaswanth
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Pete Lumbis <alumbis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If by "closest" you mean "lowest latency" you probably want to look at
> something like PfR to do this dynamically for you.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:48 AM, vasu varma <ypkcar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I have a requirement in such a way that there are two HUB's, one in
> Newyork
> and other in LOS Angeles. The spoke locations will access the HUB location
> whichever is closer geographically and the other acts as the backup for
> that particular site.
>
> If both the HUB's injects default route into the cloud, how can I
> configure
> the iBGP attributes to select the best path based on the closest physical
> location.
>
> Our's is a MPLS cloud with multiple customers sharing the same Infra.
>
> Can someone assist me with the solution approach and most importantly the
> changes that I need to do in my network.
>
> Regards
> Yaswanth
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>