Hi,
There are some designs with their pros and cons.
1)
uplink/IX uplink/IX
| |
CR1 -- CR2
| |
| |
| |
| |
AS1 -- AS2
| |
customer1 customer2
OR
2)
uplink/IX uplink/IX
| |
CR1 CR2
\ /
\ /
DS1
/ \
/ \
AS1 AS2
| |
customer1 customer2
1)
Every customer has his active(C1-AS1-CR1) and backup BGP session
(C1-AS1-AS2-CR2). For C2 - vice versa.
In that case you have to provide enough capacity:
1) between AS1 and AS2 and at the other hand
2) between CR1/2-uplink/IX
2)
Every customer has his active(C1-AS1-DS1-CR1) and backup BGP session
(C1-AS1-DS1-CR2).
In that case you have to provide:
1) Distribution Switch (DS1)
2)enough capacity between CR1/2-uplink/IX
As I said earlier - there are pros and cons with these 2 designs :)
Best~
On 5/31/2011 1:21 PM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
Hey everyone,
I would like to hear what are best practices when interconnecting
downlinks. We are small transit ISP, right now we are in middle of
network upgrade, and I would like to make network more redundant so it
less affect our downlinks when we having planed/unplanned maintenance.
Right now we have two borders 7201 and 7206 with 3 uplinks and 2 local
IX. And we terminate BGP session for downlinks at one of border, no
bgp multihop, all downlinks receive bgp full-view.
Thoughts, suggestions?
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
