That’s basically it, but best practice would probably also include manually choosing a router-id. If possible it should be a static, public IP address on one of the router interfaces.
That’s basically it, but best practice would probably also include manually choosing a router-id. If possible it should be a static, public IP address on one of the router interfaces.
Our first and maybe only peer will be Hurricane depending on how they perform. Everyone I talk to that uses them is happy though. I imagine they will assign us a single IP with the circuit. Should I assign that IP as a router-id or one I own that I will advertise? Can the router-id be changed later?
Is adding a 2nd peer as simple as doing this again:
fewi is on the case, so there is most likely very little I can add But I love to force my opinion on others, so here goes.
As per the question of adding a second peer, I would add outbound filters to my BGP advertisements. I only send to the providers what I want them to have. If you are sending two providers everything in your BGP tables, you run the risk of becoming a transit point between their systems which is not good for your bandwidth bills It’s also a best practice, so you might as well start now.
I’ve found manually setting the router ID is more a best practice when doing IBGP, which it doesn’t appear you have a major need for at the moment.
If you bring on a second provider I would suggest using a second router. This allows for software updates and hardware issues while still maintaining network uptime.
Those are the first things that popped into my head.
I would add outbound filters to my BGP advertisements. I only send to the providers what I want them to have. If you are sending two providers everything in your BGP tables, you run the risk of becoming a transit point between their systems which is not good for your bandwidth bills > > It’s also a best practice, so you might as well start now.
Doesn’t unchecking ‘route reflect’ on the peer and all the ‘redistributes’ under BGP config solve this?
If you have two peers and you want to set precedence of one over the other, you want to change how they are evaluated.
By default, BGP will use AS-path, or how many AS paths away a route is. If you want to defy this, the easiest thing to do is to use something that is evaluated before AS path is, which would be local preferece or weight.
Weight is nontransitive, which means it is significant only on the router you configure it on.
Local preference is transitive and will be sent to all other IBGP neighbors.
If you also need to influence inbound routing - weight and local preference will influence outbound routing - with more than one ISP you can use AS prepending (example here: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Simple_BGP_Multihoming#Network_Advertisements_and_Routing_Filters) to send a longer AS path to one of the peers. The Internet at large will pick up both routes, but prefer the one through the ISP that receives a shorter AS path from you.
If both peers are with the same ISP you can use MED, but should probably get with the ISP to coordinate that and make sure they don’t use weights on their side, which would override your MED settings.
Should slow my inbond traffic on isp2 connection. It also says: “use policy routing to force outgoing packets over the same link as incoming” which makes sense. But there is no good example how to do that.
Also, is there a way to simply weight the outgoing traffic on ISP2 similiar to prepend=3 but effective on outbound?
But I love to force my opinion on others, so here goes.