[c-nsp] IP SLA?

[Dan Brisson]

> Hello,
>
> On 3/24/15 8:48 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:27:59AM -0400, Dan Brisson wrote:
>>> I'm curious what folks do in the situation where you have redundant
>>> links to your customers.  I'm speaking primarily in co-lo environments
>>> where you offer redundant Internet connectivity to co-lo customers.  So
>>> for example, you give a customer 2 ethernet handoffs from two separate
>>> Layer 2 switches.   Now what do you do if the customer wants to go to a
>>> routed model using both links.  I could allocate /30s for both links,
>>> but then I have the issue of how to reliably route their block to them
>>> w/out running a routing protocol that will detect if one of the links
>>> goes down.  That's where I came to static routes with IP SLA but I
>>> wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something easier.
>> Just run a routing protocol... *SO* much easier.
>>
>> We use EIGRP for that (different EIGRP process, distribute-lists in and out,
>> so the customer can only announce his networks and will only receive default
>> from us), but for customers that cannot do that, we've also used BGP in
>> the past - more universally available, but way slower in falling over unless
>> used with BFD.
>>
>> You could use static+BFD, but I bet that half of the available gear will
>> not support that...
>>
>> gert
> Thanks for the reply.  Sounds like other than statics with BFD, which 
> I doubt will be an option due to customer's hardware, I should just 
> run a routing protocol.  Could I ask how you get eigrp to only 
> advertise a default to the customer?  I get filtering with distribute 
> lists, but in my scenario my router is only currently running BGP and 
> receives a full table from my upstream.  For eigrp to advertise the 
> default, looks like a need a static 0.0.0.0 route.  Am I missing 
> something?  It seems like doing that when I have a full table is a bad 
> idea, but maybe it's not a big deal?
>
> Thanks!
> -dan
Labbing this up, OSPF makes the default route advertisement much easier:

router ospf 160
  network 192.168.10.1 0.0.0.3 area 0
  default-information originate always

Downsides of OSPF vs. EIGRP in this scenario?

Thanks!


>
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing listcisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive athttp://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>