Question on controlling exit path OSPF Metric vs. Local-Pref
The topology attached and explanation depicts the situation I have in production and I would like to confirm the following:
1) I see I can control traffic exit path via R2 just fine by increasing the OSPF metric. Then in case R2 is unavailable, R3 takes over as intended. I am not even touching BGP attributes in order to pick the exit path in this case. Does that make sense? I heard before that I should refrain from manipulating the OSPF metrics and use BGP (such as local-pref) to do this, but I am not sure if have an option in my case and I would like to confirm and it is acceptable to manipulate OSPF metrics to accomplish this instead of using BGP attributes. I have about 20 routers running OSPF already (and no iBGP) so if I can avoid doing iBGP internally that is better.
2) Given that I am doing redistribution from BGP-> OSPF internally, do I need or is there any benefit if I establish iBGP neighbor session between the two internal border routers R2<->R3?
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3.
16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted
towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are
looking for early feedback from customers befor...
Introduction Featured Speakers Luis Espejel is the Telecommunications
Manager of IENova, an Oil & Gas company. Currently he works with Cisco
IOS® and Cisco IOS XE platforms, and NX to some extent. He has also
worked as a Senior Engineer with the Routing P...
In this session you can learn more about Layer 3 multicast and the best
practices to identify possible threats and take security measures. It
provides an overview of basic multicast, the best security practices for
use of this technology, and recommendati...