[AusNOG] Best practice BGP and wan links

[Alex Samad - Yieldbroker]

No

Is that the opensource fork

A

Sent from my smart phone

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Berryman [Tom at connectivityit.com.au]
Received: Sunday, 12 Jul 2015, 20:20
To: Alex Samad - Yieldbroker [Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com]
CC: Mark Smith [markzzzsmith at gmail.com]; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net [ausnog at lists.ausnog.net]
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Best practice BGP and wan links

If thats your scenario have you considered a Vyatta cluster?
2 boxes, not need for VRRP.

Tom Berryman

On 12 Jul 2015, at 7:10 pm, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker <Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com<mailto:Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com>> wrote:

Hi

Yes more info.  Multiple connections to multiple ISP's.  Currently they are terminated into switches and then L3 terminated into RouterOS VM's.  I am planning on replacing the VM's with  some MT CCR's. My thought had been to leave the termination into the switches and then  L3 terminate onto the phy MT boxes.  As I can't HSRP / stack the routers my only option was VRRP. But BGP VRRP didn't seem like a good thing, better to get the extra IP and have  2 links.

Interestingly I have BFD running on some of those links and reduced timers on the BGP session for the other links as some ISP didn't/wouldn't run BFD..


Thanks
Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Smith [mailto:markzzzsmith at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 12 July 2015 5:54 PM
To: Alex Samad - Yieldbroker
Cc: Benoit Page-Guitard; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Best practice BGP and wan links

On 12 July 2015 at 15:14, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker <Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com<mailto:Alex.Samad at yieldbroker.com>> wrote:
Yeah that was sort of my thought, I guess I have to start the process of asking for the extra IP..


More details of your scenario would be better.

VRRP being an option means that you only have a single link to your upstream. Since in general links fail more often than devices, the redundancy value of having two routers at your end and two BGP sessions over a single link to a single upstream router is a bit questionable, because you haven't eliminated all single points of failure. You have partial but not complete redundancy, and you need to consider whether not having complete redundancy is acceptable to either or both you or your network's users.



A

-----Original Message-----
From: Benoit Page-Guitard [mailto:benoit at anchor.net.au]
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:13 PM
To: Alex Samad - Yieldbroker
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Best practice BGP and wan links

Hi Alex,

I assume the use case here is having redundant routers at the branch end and using VRRP on the WAN link as a signalling mechanism for deciding which router should "own" the WAN IP + speak BGP with the upstream router?

If so, I'd definitely opt for an extra WAN IP if you can swing it. It'll make the whole failover scenario a lot smoother, and would also have the indirect benefit of giving you free load balancing for your downstream-facing LAN interfaces.

Regards,
Benoit

On Sat Jul 11, 2015 at 08:03:10 +0000, Alex Samad - Yieldbroker wrote:

What I was looking at doing was setting up bgp over vrrp on some mikrotik boxes, seems like it's possible, but it also seem easier to get an extra WAN ip.

Any one doing this ?

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog