Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Multi-homed BGP load sharing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 17, 2008
13
0
0
US
Designing a new datacenter network used for webserver hosting. Internet connectivity will be multihomed (we have our own AS) through two ISP's that will each give us two 1Gbit/s connections. The routers are Cisco ASR1002's with 10G backplane and 4Gb of RAM.

The options I have been contemplating are:

1. Bundle the 1G's (EtherChannel) and have one ISP per router with 2Gbit/s of bandwidth. Load sharing/failover will be configured between the two ISP routers.

2. Build out two routers with two ISP's on each. The intent would be to load share/failover across all four connections.

Option 2 would probably not be my prefered option, but been asked to look into this option as it would offer the highest form of redundancy.

Any feedback would be welcome....thanks!
 
2 will be pain in the ass to segregate traffic, Best bet is option one. With a 10 gig connection bettween the routers. Then the fun part, ( I am so jealous, I love High Bandwidth Projects) Design an IpSLA/IGP Distribution, Then redistribute into bgp. Add some community's and sir, you are redundant. Option 2 is too tedious and would require Way more route manipulation for appropriate Fialover, unless you get fancy with the IGP.
Let us know what you pick.

CCNP
 
I don't think the slight redundancy boost of option 2 will be worth the complexity it would add to the design. Option 1 will give you redundancy at an ISP, gateway and interface level, and I think the overall downtime avoided during periods where Router A and ISP B have simultaneously failed will be offset by the downtime caused simply through operational support and troubleshooting of the more complex design.

CCNP, CCDP
 
In theory you could get more usable bandwidth with option 2. Option 1 is easier. Option 2 you can set up to fail automatic (as opposed to what was said in previous posts). You could have some level of load sharing with option 2 although manipulating inbound traffic is always a bit challenging. Pfr / ore is one way of doing the inbound and outbound balancing act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top