[j-nsp] BGP multihop question

[Shane Ronan]

I would agree with this, no reason to bother with HSRP, since you
already have the redundancy of two sessions.



-----Original Message-----
From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of David Ball
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 4:12 PM
To: Derick Winkworth
Cc: Campbell, Alex; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP multihop question


  I'm not sure I'd bother with HSRP in this case, if I understand it
properly (possible that I don't).

  They have 2 routers (A & B), each with a loopback (assumedly the IPs
they want you to peer with), they have 2 switches, and then there's
your 2 routers (Y & Z).  Your routers and their routers each have 1 of
the IPs from the /29 you're using.  You should be able to simply have
a static route on Y pointing to A's loopback, and on Z pointing to B's
loopback,  (next-hop being their side of the /29).  Y would then
establish a BGP session to A, and Z to B (2 sessions total).
Alternatively, Y could establish a session to A *and* B, and so could
Z (4 sessions total, requires another static route on Y & Z), which
would provide a bit more redundancy.

  It's late on a Friday afternoon and I could be absent minded, but I
can't see how HSRP would help me in this topology if I'm doing BGP as
well.

David



2008/10/31 Derick Winkworth <dwinkworth at att.net>:
> Their HSRP address is what I'd assume....
>
> Campbell, Alex wrote:
>> Thanks, that's great.  They're not running RIP or OSPF to customers.
>>
>> The only other thing is that I'm not sure about is whether to point
the
>> static route to the ISP router's HSRP address or their individual
>> addresses?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Derick Winkworth [mailto:dwinkworth at att.net]
>> Sent: Friday, 31 October 2008 11:03 PM
>> To: Campbell, Alex
>> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] BGP multihop question
>>
>> That is the correct approach, unless they are also running RIP or
OSPF
>> inbetween...
>>
>> Which I doubt.  But hey... you never know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Campbell, Alex wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We are in the process of bringing up an additional upstream provider
>>>
>> to
>>
>>> our J4350s. They have given us two switchports on a /29, and told us
>>>
>> to
>>
>>> establish multihop BGP sessions to their routers (which are on a
>>> completely different subnet).  Each switchport will come back to a
>>> different J4350 on our end.
>>>
>>> My problem is that I don't get how our routers will know where to
send
>>> the BGP packets to the ISPs routers, as they won't have a route for
>>>
>> them
>>
>>> (we are running defaultless).
>>>
>>> I think I need to add a static route out to their BGP routers - is
>>>
>> this
>>
>>> the correct approach here? Or am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Any help would be most appreciated.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>
>>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1756 - Release Date:
>>>
>> 10/30/2008 7:59 AM
>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1756 - Release Date:
10/30/2008 7:59 AM
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp