![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AS-x AS-y AS-z
| \ / | / |
| \ / | / /
| /\ / | /
| / /\ | /
| / / \ | /
|/ / \|/
R1--------------- R2
| |
| |
| |
SW1--------------SW2
| |
| |
| |
FW1--------------FW2
| |
| |
| |
SW3--------------SW4
| /
| /
| /
| /
Hostthat is not a cheap solution
i need only fe or ge interfaces
that is not a cheap solution
i need only fe or ge interfaces
i saw in one data sheet the J2320 has 256/512mb ram that looks funny for me
i saw in one data sheet the J2320 has 256/512mb ram that looks funny for me
iBGP is definitely not a need for this layout, technically you can 100% get away with this and any IGP and not have to use an EGP, then again you lose the one benefit of BGP and thats path manipulation. Also, we cant assume that hes using it for failover because we don't know what hes doing with his eBGP attributes nor how is end hosts at the edge communicate with the rest of the outside world.
Negative, the switch is being used for any kind of RP connectivity for the CE routers as well as the failover for the ASA's(since theres no direct connection). If we removed the outside switches we would need to directly connect both routers and both ASA's.
Cross-over cable
. This is how we suggest that you configure the ASA if at all possible. If you must traverse the switch, carve out a L2 VLAN for the failover.Meh, this is a lazyness statement. Good engineering will always, no matter what bring the single point of failure as close to the inner edge as possible. Your prior statement would literally have the single point of failure at the CE routers, that is totally unacceptable by any standards.
well , I got in here a bit late... where to start.....
iBGP is definitely not a need for this layout, technically you can 100% get away with this and any IGP and not have to use an EGP, then again you lose the one benefit of BGP and thats path manipulation. Also, we cant assume that hes using it for failover because we don't know what hes doing with his eBGP attributes nor how is end hosts at the edge communicate with the rest of the outside world.
Negative, the switch is being used for any kind of RP connectivity for the CE routers as well as the failover for the ASA's(since theres no direct connection). If we removed the outside switches we would need to directly connect both routers and both ASA's.
Cross-over cable
No where in my statement did I say that he did not need to run a routing protocol. I said that he did not need to run INTERIOR bgp, that he could use any other IGP if he would like. Secondly, if hes wants to peer with public AS's hes going to be forced to use BGP, I thought I made that obvious when I said we didn't know what kind of attribute manipulation he was going to be doing. Lastly, he does NOT, let me say that again.. he does NOT need to run iBGP between his routers. Running iBGP in this case will not gain you ANYTHING(unless you want to do some kind of pathing manipulation). With VRRP properly configured and AS path prepending configured on the secondary router traffic will NEVER see the secondardy router. Fin.
No, im not missing your point but I do see a very poorly engineered(if you can call it that) solution. Just pointing that out, if I went to a customer with that and they had half a brain I would be laughed at.
Since his topology is fully-meshed with the ASes, I agree.
Couldn't agree more. If you've got the money, keep single failures at the access level.
CEF is an IOS hack to get around the overhead of context switching, not a hardware feature. The FIB for it is allocated from main memory. As for as the ASICs go... well, even a route processor is technically an ASIC as it is application specific. Line cards also have their own ASICs -- why bother the main processor if two hosts are on the same card (e.g. dCEF)? Even on the newer Nexus 7010 platform, there's an ASIC that muxes 4 10Gb interfaces, and then an ASIC that muxes those ASICs. To say that ASICs don't exist in routers is like saying they don't have capacitors... there are plenty of them. I just hope you weren't a comp eng or EE major!
CEF is an IOS hack to get around the overhead of context switching, not a hardware feature. The FIB for it is allocated from main memory. As for as the ASICs go... well, even a route processor is technically an ASIC as it is application specific. Line cards also have their own ASICs -- why bother the main processor if two hosts are on the same card (e.g. dCEF)? Even on the newer Nexus 7010 platform, there's an ASIC that muxes 4 10Gb interfaces, and then an ASIC that muxes those ASICs. To say that ASICs don't exist in routers is like saying they don't have capacitors... there are plenty of them. I just hope you weren't a comp eng or EE major!
Ah, ok... yeah, I tend to break things down further than they really need to be. I guess I'm still in college mode where I want to know how all components build on each other.
And no, I was not an EE or comp eng major(network engineering actually) but I do use the Cisco terminology
. Man, this is what scares me about taking the CCIE someday. Finding the "right" way to phrase or do things.BW-3750-CoreSWA#show platform port-asic version
Port-Asic Version Info:
========================
ASIC-0: Version:8 DeviceType:0x2C1
ASIC-1: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-2: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-3: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-4: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-5: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-6: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-7: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-8: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-9: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-10: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-11: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
ASIC-12: Version:9 DeviceType:0x2F4
BW-3750-CoreSWA#sh ver | inc IOS
Cisco IOS Software, C3750 Software (C3750-IPBASEK9-M), Version 12.2(46)SE, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)
BW-3750-CoreSWA#xphil3 said:
Once again, there is no benefit from running either an IGP or EGP within his AS if he configures VRRP with AS-path prepending on his secondary device. The only benefit that he would gain from running iBGP is preventing asymmetric routing conditions if he was *not* running a virtual failover protocol.
I think I should restate what I was saying, your solution does work. I never said that it didn't, just that it was poorly engineered. The reason I said that was because from my standpoint, and the customers that I deal(ISP's and enterprise level customers) with that solution is NOT fault tolerant. Yes, there is no *single* point of failure but if other failures do occur in your designed your hosed(which was stated earlier in this thread). Now, you recommended that solution to the OP, who clearly had enough interfaces on his CE routers to redundantly connect them to his "outside" switches, to remove those links. In that situation alone, the solution is poorly engineered.
Once again, there is no benefit from running either an IGP or EGP within his AS if he configures VRRP with AS-path prepending on his secondary device. The only benefit that he would gain from running iBGP is preventing asymmetric routing conditions if he was *not* running a virtual failover protocol.
I think I should restate what I was saying, your solution does work. I never said that it didn't, just that it was poorly engineered. The reason I said that was because from my standpoint, and the customers that I deal(ISP's and enterprise level customers) with that solution is NOT fault tolerant. Yes, there is no *single* point of failure but if other failures do occur in your designed your hosed(which was stated earlier in this thread). Now, you recommended that solution to the OP, who clearly had enough interfaces on his CE routers to redundantly connect them to his "outside" switches, to remove those links. In that situation alone, the solution is poorly engineered.
You're a smart dude, not saying anything otherwise but for ISP/enterprise level customers your solution would be sent back to engineering.
With all this said, you're right... we're doing a whole lot of assuming and flaming(which is always good fun, its how I learn most of the time). I think threads like these are the more valuable threads on the forums. Think about it, You, me and a few others have basically engineered a solution for this guy, for FREE.... thank god I didn't have to sign an non-compete
Heh, I as well do the Govt work(bunch of different orgs). Things in the commercial world are a bit different but more so when it relates to the pace of how things get done. Government has and will also be slower. Sit tight with your govt job(especially if you're a contractor) as its the best and secure place to be in at the current moment
Heh, I as well do the Govt work(bunch of different orgs). Things in the commercial world are a bit different but more so when it relates to the pace of how things get done. Government has and will also be slower. Sit tight with your govt job(especially if you're a contractor) as its the best and secure place to be in at the current moment