> -----Original Message----- > From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:27 PM > To: Ingo Flaschberger > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question > > On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote: > > Dear Lorell, > > > >> We will implement OSPF. > > > > so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams? > > It's not an either or proposition...
Well, I believe the original poster said that one of his colleagues swore that BGP multihoming wouldn't work unless both feeds terminated on the same router. I suppose said colleague has never heard of iBGP between two routers of the local AS. Those two routers should probably take a full table and exchange them between the two but going inside the network, yeah, they should probably simply originate a default into the the ospf routing. But I am making some assumptions here. I am assuming the two routers have connectivity between them sufficient to handle the required traffic in case one of the upstreams fails (backhaul bandwidth is at least equal to upstream bandwidth). Maybe the colleague knew that the links between the sites were insufficient and that is why both links were desired on the same physical unit or something. It is impossible to sort out other people's networking from short blurbs on a mailing list. George
