![]() 00:03:31, localpref 100, from 22.22.22.22Īs a result, we do not have ECMP, we lost it!Īdding multipath and oad balancing policy on RRs does not help. R3 receives two copies, one from each RR, but they both point to the same next-hop (1.1.1.1): run show route protocol bgp Originator ID: run show route advertising-protocol bgp 3.3.3.3 extensive In this case the first one as it comes from the lowest peer (1.1.1.1): run show route advertising-protocol bgp 3.3.3.3 extensive Inet.0: 24 destinations, 25 routes (24 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) RRs receive a copy of 100/8 from both R1 and R2: run show route protocol bgp ![]() RRs BGP configuration only includes “cluster” setting (0.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.2)įor simplicity, 100/8 is configured as a “discard static route” on both R1 and R2 and distributed to RRs.We configure all the network elements with a minimal basic configuration: We want traffic destined to 100/8 to be equally shared among R3-R1 and R3-R2 links. That route is advertised, via iBGP, to Route Reflectors that reflect it to R3. Network 100/8 is reachable through both R1 and R2. Moreover, in medium/large networks we will probably have route reflectors to distribute routes within the routing domain.īy default, route reflection and ECMP are not great friends. Simply put, we have equal cost multiple paths. This redundancy not only brings higher fault tolerance but it always provide better traffic distribution as those redundant paths also are different paths that can be used to share the load across the network. Modern and well-built networks are path redundant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |