Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
Hello all, I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations. The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally. What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers. Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options: -Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our community strings) Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly. Wes ________________________________ ************************************************************************************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence. **************************************************************************************************
Assuming the MPLS provider is a single company, and uses BGP at all sites to talk to your routers, I would simply set the MED (in cisco terms) to reflect what you desire. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094934... This assumes however that the failover you require is based on the router at the primary site going down. I understand it's for DR, but if you have your routing equipment on a UPS/Generator at the primary site, it's something to think about. DR may mean more than just your link or site going down, for some people it goes as far as the server farm going down (but the router still up). Something to think about. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Wesley Tribble" <WTribble@sterneagee.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:05:17 AM Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
-Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location
yes
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration.
Hi Wesley, For an Internet-based system, here's how you would do it. The private MPLS-based network you describe won't be quite the same but it'll be similar. * Announce with a AS path length from the DR site that has at least 3 prepends. Get your own RIR-assigned AS number for this; you can use private AS numbers but this will eventually confuse someone debugging a connectivity problem. * Local pref the accepted routes to prefer the primary site. * At least two ISPs at the primary site. * At the DR site, the usually single ISP should be the same as one of the ISPs at the primary site. That way when there's trouble talking to the two sites there's only one vendor to blame and it's the one you pay directly. It also means the GRE tunnel traffic between sites tends to stay on a single carrier. * GRE tunnels between the sites running IBGP. One GRE tunnel for each pair of Internet connections. Despite your best efforts you'll get a trickle of traffic into the DR site during normal operation of the primary. You'll want to send it back to the primary site and that should all happen outside the firewall. * In addition to your BGP announced addresses, get a small bank of IP addresses from each ISP for each Internet connection at each site. I usually ask for a /28 but a /29 is normally adequate. You'll need these to anchor your GRE tunnels and management functions. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations. The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ************************************************************************************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence. **************************************************************************************************
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc, but why not just redistribute into BGP? I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed. Thanks, Bill -----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************** **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
************************************************************************ **************************
On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary.
It might be, but we have a requirement for multicast over the wan so the GRE tunnels had to be there.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc, but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I see no reason to trust the provider that much.
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Sure.. but how do you *know* you're not getting anything added/removed by the provider? Lee
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************** **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
************************************************************************ **************************
I work for an MPLS provider, so I guess I tend to trust them ;) Bill -----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:28 AM To: Ingrum, Bill Cc: WTribble@sterneagee.com; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary.
It might be, but we have a requirement for multicast over the wan so the GRE tunnels had to be there.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc,
but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I see no reason to trust the provider that much.
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Sure.. but how do you *know* you're not getting anything added/removed by the provider? Lee
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will
host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at
both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I
am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence
local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our
community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************* * **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions
regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne
Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
********************************************************************** ** **************************
I'd prefer to trust / get the provider to do the right thing over losing the 40 mtu points.... and all the associated headache therein. -Blake On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM, <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I work for an MPLS provider, so I guess I tend to trust them ;)
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:28 AM To: Ingrum, Bill Cc: WTribble@sterneagee.com; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary.
It might be, but we have a requirement for multicast over the wan so the GRE tunnels had to be there.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc,
but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I see no reason to trust the provider that much.
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Sure.. but how do you *know* you're not getting anything added/removed by the provider?
Lee
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will
host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at
both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I
am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence
local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our
community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************* * **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions
regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne
Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
********************************************************************** ** **************************
Options 1) Ask the provider if they have any traffic engineering communities available. Many of the large ones offer some. 2) Use BGP MED to influence the output path (works in most cases). 3) If that fails, use as-path pre-pending to influence the output path from the provider towards you. GRE tunnels are not necessary for MPLS in most use cases. Additionally, many SPs support native multicast over their L3VPN services if you need this -- shop around. Finally, you mention the vendor can accept traffic on either router. Consider just announcing the routes equally from both locations into MPLS and letting the traffic more or less load balance as it sees fit on the way to your vendor -- this is how the internet generally works. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd prefer to trust / get the provider to do the right thing over losing the 40 mtu points.... and all the associated headache therein.
-Blake
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:33 AM, <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I work for an MPLS provider, so I guess I tend to trust them ;)
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:28 AM To: Ingrum, Bill Cc: WTribble@sterneagee.com; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary.
It might be, but we have a requirement for multicast over the wan so the GRE tunnels had to be there.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc,
but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I see no reason to trust the provider that much.
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Sure.. but how do you *know* you're not getting anything added/removed by the provider?
Lee
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will
host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at
both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I
am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence
local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our
community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************* * **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions
regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne
Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
********************************************************************** ** **************************
On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I work for an MPLS provider, so I guess I tend to trust them ;)
For certain definitions of "trust" I would also. But.. Monday? I was told that $AGENCY had just completed an audit of our network and we had to change the exec timeout from 15 to 10 minutes on all routers and switches. Apparently that extra 5 minutes is an unacceptable security risk. But leaving the network wide-open to all sorts of routing hijinks via MPLS? (I don't have route filters & acls on all of the mpls interfaces yet) nada We can't trust the people in our office area to not to take advantage of an unattended terminal but we can trust our MPLS providers to not take advantage of their unrestricted access? Seems backwards to me. Regards, Lee
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:28 AM To: Ingrum, Bill Cc: WTribble@sterneagee.com; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/31/12, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary.
It might be, but we have a requirement for multicast over the wan so the GRE tunnels had to be there.
Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc,
but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I see no reason to trust the provider that much.
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Sure.. but how do you *know* you're not getting anything added/removed by the provider?
Lee
Thanks,
Bill
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will
host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at
both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I
am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence
local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our
community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ ********************************************************************* * **************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions
regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne
Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
********************************************************************** ** **************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/31/2012 09:21 AM, Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc, but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Thanks,
Bill
Using bgp communities (MED attribute "inbound") helped influence our path(s) between our mpls providers. regards, /virendra
-----Original Message----- From: Lee [mailto:ler762@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:15 AM To: Tribble, Wesley Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Redundant Routes, BGP with MPLS provider
On 8/30/12, Tribble, Wesley <WTribble@sterneagee.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I am an Network Operator working in an Enterprise environment with offices all over the country(mostly connected via MPLS). We are currently working towards building a Disaster Recovery Site that will host some of our vendor routers and provide the capability to access these vendors from both our primary and backup data center locations.
The routes(as advertised by the vendor's routers) will be the same at both locations. I would like to advertise the routes from multiple locations at the same time, rather than suppress the routes and advertise conditionally.
At work, we have our internal routing protocol running on GRE over IPSec tunnels & keep the BGP sessions with the MPLS provider limited to just the MPLS network. And have an ACL on the MPLS network interface that allows only what's expected in... some providers are better than others at not having anything hit the 'deny any any log' line
Regards, Lee
What is the best method to Instruct the provider's network to prefer the Primary Data Center routes over the DR site? Keep in mind that I am only peering with the provider over BGP and I have no visibility to
the underlying MPLS architecture or configuration. Although if you have specific questions about their architecture, I can work to get answers.
Discussing in house, we have gone over a few different options:
-Advertise specific routes from primary site and summary routes from the DR site. Most specific will always be chosen. -Prepend the routes from the DR site so that they will have a longer AS-path than the Primary location -Use Community Strings to influence local preference.(Still working to find out if Provider will pass our community strings)
Just looking for some ideas and best practices. Any thoughts or insight would be much welcomed and appreciated. This is my first message on NANOG, so please be gentle. I apologize in advance if I have done something incorrectly.
Wes
________________________________ **********************************************************************
**************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its
subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do
not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our
current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence.
************************************************************************
**************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlBBA1kACgkQ3HuimOHfh+HhsgD7BGtBuiX9tw0leW5e2Jv3jT5E OvAlvkc6bJgE6oSPwdYA/2AkjAWawOOJAIvkmIh6+jXQJo5IRJhl5u6IqtbwFKsy =zUYy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM, <Bill.Ingrum@t-systems.com> wrote:
I think having a GRE tunnel for the internal routing protocol is unnecessary. Can you explain the reasoning behind this? I understand the technical issue whereby GRE will allow multicast for EIGRP, OSPF, etc, but why not just redistribute into BGP?
I work on a lot of MPLS CE routers, and in general you can accomplish anything you need by redistributing your internal routing protocol into BGP, and adjusting LP, MED and AS Prepend as needed.
Thanks, Bill
So, rather than run an IGP between siteA and siteZ across a GRE tunnel, you'd prefer to redistribute your IGP into BGP at siteA, advertise those routes upstream...and at siteZ, accept the routes in via BGP, and then redistribute them into the IGP for the other routers at siteZ, and vice versa? Or would you have every router at siteA and siteZ participate in BGP, so that all the routers at siteZ get the routes from siteA intact? (choice B tends to have practical implications on what network gear you can run within the sites; many devices that will happily speak OSPF or EIGRP won't be quite so happy participating in an iBGP mesh. And choice A...well, I think we all know the pitfall with choice A, so enough said on that score). Curious to hear the actual mechanism you'd use to make this work in the real world. Thanks! Matt
participants (10)
-
Bill.Ingrum＠t-systems.com -
Blake Dunlap -
Christopher Morrow -
Lee -
Matthew Petach -
PC -
Tribble, Wesley -
virendra rode -
Walter Keen -
William Herrin