[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Mikrotik BGP Question

Subject: Mikrotik BGP Question
From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 22:26:39 -0700
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <02b001caf8df$62324ea0$2696ebe0$@org> <[email protected]> <03b501caf9f9$8f315bb0$ad941310$@org> <[email protected]> <001a01cafa32$e8369340$b8a3b9c0$@org> <[email protected]>

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...

ospf carries your internal routes, ibgp carries you external routes 
between internal routers. you can carry default around in either in fact 
you probably should since routers that don't need a nuanced view of the 
outside world don't need to carry such a big table.

> Kind regards,
> Ingo Flaschberger
>
>

Follow-Ups:
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: gbonser at seven.com (George Bonser)

References:
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: lorell at hathcock.org (Lorell Hathcock)
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: if at xip.at (Ingo Flaschberger)
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: lorell at hathcock.org (Lorell Hathcock)
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: if at xip.at (Ingo Flaschberger)
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: lorell at hathcock.org (Lorell Hathcock)
- Mikrotik BGP Question
  - From: if at xip.at (Ingo Flaschberger)

Prev by Date: Mikrotik BGP Question
Next by Date: Mikrotik BGP Question
Previous by thread: Mikrotik BGP Question
Next by thread: Mikrotik BGP Question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread