Hi Chris, Thank you for taking your time and point me in the right direction! I'm getting full routes, so it should be easy for me to achieve your concept.
Best regards, On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 9:53 PM Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.au> wrote: > Hi Jean, > > You can establish an iBGP session between the two routers that exchange > either default & own routes, or they can send their own routes with fulls > and use local pref to preference the directly-connected transit session > before routes learnt from the iBGP session, depending on how you want > engineer your traffic. If you are not receiving full tables and only > getting a default from each transit provider you would need to weight the > defaults so it uses the preferred default. If you're planning to add (for > example) peering or PNIs to either router in the future, you will want full > tables for greater traffic control. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > ------------------------------ > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris=thesysadmin...@nanog.org> on behalf of > Jean Franco <jfra...@maila.inf.br> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 24, 2024 10:33 AM > *To:* North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Best way to have redundancy announcing on separate routers > > Hi Folks, > > I'm trying to achieve total redundancy on a multihomed environment: > > ISP 1 <=> Router 1 <= X => Router 2 <=> ISP 2 > Where X is my Network. > > In the example below, he announces separate blocks to each ISP. > > https://www.networkstraining.com/cisco-bgp-configuration-tutorial/ > > I would like to do a failover model, where if one ISP goes down the other > would take over. > Please share your thoughts on this. > > Best regards, >
