Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

please helpconfederation and ibgp question

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


deric.kwok2000 at gmail

Jun 26, 2012, 12:51 PM

Post #1 of 2 (104 views)
Permalink
please helpconfederation and ibgp question

Hi all

I would like to ask questions aboutconfederation and ibgp

We know confederation from nanog achieve 101,102 and setup lab.
bgp and ibgp can work properly but not sure we are doing right.

We have quesions

1/ for the annoucing networks, do we have to announce it in border routers?
eg: border routers. 66.59.128.0/22
but all ibgp routers are already announcing networks individually in
ibgp Routers
eg: Router A: 66.59.128.0/24, Router B: 66.59.129.0/24, Router C:
66.59.130.0/24, Router D: 66.59.131.128/25

In our labs, it can work. but we would like to know the setting is
correct. or any announcing overlapping when announcing in broder
Router and all individual ibgp routers

2/ But if it is not right to announce /22 in broder routers, let
Router A,B,C, D announce it in 4 separate networks. ls it ok too?
in the lab, the bgp can work too. but i read the bgp doc that it
prefers us to announce it in /22 instead of 4 seperate one?

3/ in the border routers, we take out some ip from network
66.59.131.0/24 (eg: 66.59.131.0/28, 66.59.131.16/28) to interconnected
to Router A, B, C and D
We don't know which one is good for use in bgp configuration

redistributed connected
or
network 66.59.131.0/28
network 66.59.131.16/28

If using network command "network 66.59.131.0/28, network
66.59.131.0/28" to let communicate between ibgp, there might have
overlapping too as we already announcing 66.59.128.0/22. in the
border router, there might have

network 66.59.128.0/22
network 66.59.131.0/28
network 66.59.131.16/28

ls the command "redistributed connect" better? but this is border
Router. We concern it will effect the upstream using redistributed
connect

Please help

Thank you so much


randy_94108 at yahoo

Jun 26, 2012, 4:54 PM

Post #2 of 2 (98 views)
Permalink
Re: please helpconfederation and ibgp question [In reply to]

--- On Tue, 6/26/12, Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000 [at] gmail> wrote:

> From: Deric Kwok <deric.kwok2000 [at] gmail>
> Subject: please helpconfederation and ibgp question
> To: "nanog list" <nanog [at] nanog>
> Date: Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 12:51 PM
> Hi all
>
> I would like to ask questions aboutconfederation and ibgp
>
> We know confederation from nanog achieve 101,102 and setup
> lab.
> bgp and ibgp can work properly  but not sure we are
> doing right.
>
> We have quesions
>
> 1/  for the annoucing networks, do we have to announce
> it in border routers?
> eg: border routers.  66.59.128.0/22
> but all ibgp routers are already announcing networks
> individually in
> ibgp Routers
> eg: Router A: 66.59.128.0/24, Router B: 66.59.129.0/24,
> Router C:
> 66.59.130.0/24, Router D: 66.59.131.128/25
>
> In our labs, it can work. but we would like to know the
> setting is
> correct. or any announcing overlapping when announcing in
> broder
> Router and all individual ibgp routers
>
> 2/ But if it is not right to announce /22 in broder routers,
> let
> Router A,B,C, D announce it in 4 separate networks.  ls
> it ok too?
> in the lab, the bgp can work too. but i read the bgp doc
> that it
> prefers us to announce it in /22 instead of 4 seperate one?
>
> 3/ in the border routers, we take out some ip from network
> 66.59.131.0/24 (eg: 66.59.131.0/28, 66.59.131.16/28) to
> interconnected
> to Router A, B, C and D
> We don't know which one is good for use in bgp
> configuration
>
> redistributed connected
> or
> network 66.59.131.0/28
> network 66.59.131.16/28
>
> If using network command "network 66.59.131.0/28, network
> 66.59.131.0/28" to let communicate between ibgp, there might
> have
> overlapping too as we already announcing 
> 66.59.128.0/22. in the
> border router, there might have
>
> network 66.59.128.0/22
> network 66.59.131.0/28
> network 66.59.131.16/28
>
> ls the command "redistributed connect" better? but this is
> border
> Router.  We concern it will effect the upstream using
> redistributed
> connect
>
> Please help
>
> Thank you so much
>

Deric-

I don't mean to sound rude but I think it is time you asked $Employer for routing/switching/best-practices training. It will help you understand what you do and why you do it.
The labs, and NANOG presentations are a good start.
./Randy

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.