Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

ISP Redundancy in multihomed BGP scenario

Hi all,

 

We have setup the WAN network multihomed with dual ISP. The requirement is that if the primary ISP fail then all the traffic should automatically divert to the secondary ISP. How can we achieve it?  If you know that we can use keepalive then could you provide me the configuration with the scenario. In normal working setup, all the traffic for the internal network comes through ISP 1 but if ISP 1 failed then without manual attribute manipulation BGP automatically route the traffic to ISP 2.

Thanks

 

 

3 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Arumugam,I hope you have BGP

Arumugam,

I hope you have BGP session with both ISP. So it should be taken care automatically. You might see some delay in convergence but there is no need for any manual attribute manipulation or intervene to get the traffic redirected to secondary ISP.

 

Can you share the config you have to make sure if the design is intended to fall back to secondary ISP?.

 

-Nagendra

New Member

Thanks kumar for your quick

Thanks kumar for your quick reply.

Customer says that during isp failure automatic switchover to second isp does not happen and he has to manually do it. I will share the config below.

One more thing that with this config isp 2 router not shows any routes but isp 1 routers only shows all learnt routes.

Thx

Hi, what exactly does not

Hi,

 

what exactly does not work during the switchover to the second ISP?

Your router is not getting prefixes from the second ISP or the second ISP is not getting proper prefixes from you?

I believe the second case is happenning?

As I see in the config

ip access-list extended Range-2
permit ip 7.17.24.0 0.0.0.255 any
ip access-list extended Range-3
permit ip 7.17.24.0 0.0.0.255 any

i.e., both ranges are identical, which is not correct, I guess?

 

And generally, I don't think using extended ACLs in a BGP route-map is a good idea, see

http://blog.ipspace.net/2008/03/use-extended-access-lists-to-filter-bgp.html

It's much easier to understand the config when ip prefix-lists are used instead, I can't follow your current config idea to be honest.

 

Best regards,

Milan

 


 

236
Views
0
Helpful
3
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content