[c-nsp] BGP advertisements more specific than IGP

[James Urwiller]

Thanks for the input!

James Urwiller
Network Operations Manager
CCNA 11567125
American Broadband
402-426-6257 - Office
402-278-1875 - Cell
402-426-6273 - Fax




jurwiller at americanbb.com





On 3/1/13 11:29 AM, "Mack McBride" <mack.mcbride at viawest.com> wrote:

>Most providers have a set of communities to set local pref and
>Re-advertisement to peers that can be used to influence inbound
>Traffic.
>
>The short answer is there is not a 'good' way to influence inbound
>Traffic.  Communities are your best bet.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Urwiller [mailto:jurwiller at americanbb.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:27 AM
>To: Mack McBride; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>Subject: Re: BGP advertisements more specific than IGP
>
>Community strings don't effect inbound traffic, right?
>Is there really no good way to influence inbound traffic?
>
>James Urwiller
>Network Operations Manager
>CCNA 11567125
>American Broadband
>402-426-6257 - Office
>402-278-1875 - Cell
>402-426-6273 - Fax
>
>
>
>
>jurwiller at americanbb.com
>
>
>
>
>
>On 3/1/13 11:25 AM, "Mack McBride" <mack.mcbride at viawest.com> wrote:
>
>>You can use conditional advertisement to do what you are wanting to do.
>>But as Randy mentioned you should really use communities with your
>>upstreams to influence traffic.
>>If communities don't work then consider conditional advertisement.
>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_0/np1/configuration/guide/1cbgp.
>>htm
>>l#wp9071
>>If you advertise your deaggregates you should still advertise your
>>aggregate block.
>>That allows those of us who don't care about your traffic engineering
>>desires  but do care about the routing table size to drop your
>>deaggregates.
>>At some point a lot of providers are going to be dropping deaggregates.
>>
>>LR Mack McBride
>>Network Architect
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>>[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of James Urwiller
>>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:12 PM
>>To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>Subject: [c-nsp] BGP advertisements more specific than IGP
>>
>>I have a BGP multi-homed invironment that I am having problems
>>balancing inbound traffic, besides prepends which don't seem to be
>>helping anymore, I have heard that announcing my networks more
>>specifically could also influence inbound traffic.  My question is, for
>>example... If I have a
>>/23 that I am using as a /23 in OSPF, can I announce that in BGP more
>>specifically (2, /24's)  without having to them break it up internally
>>as well?  What I foresee happening is this..
>>
>>Example:
>>BGP:
>>Network 192.168.0.0/24
>>Network 192.168.1.0/24
>>
>>OSPF:
>>Network 192.168.0.0/23
>>
>>I would think in this scenario, the IP addresses 192.168.1.0 and
>>192.168.0.255 would not have a route in BGP, even though they are valid
>>addresses for use when used as a /23.  Since I would be multi-homed, I
>>would still advertise the network as the aggregate /23 on the circuit I
>>don't want to take as much traffic, so would those IP addresses in this
>>scenario still work, but only through the circuit I advertise as the
>>aggregate??
>>
>>James Urwiller
>>Network Operations Manager
>>CCNA 11567125
>>American Broadband
>>402-426-6257 - Office
>>402-278-1875 - Cell
>>402-426-6273 - Fax
>>jurwiller at americanbb.com<mailto:jurwiller at americanbb.com>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/
>