Mikrotik BGP Question

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Mon May 24 05:48:01 UTC 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: joel jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:27 PM
> To: Ingo Flaschberger
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Mikrotik BGP Question
> 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...

Well, I believe the original poster said that one of his colleagues
swore that BGP multihoming wouldn't work unless both feeds terminated on
the same router.  I suppose said colleague has never heard of iBGP
between two routers of the local AS. Those two routers should probably
take a full table and exchange them between the two but going inside the
network, yeah, they should probably simply originate a default into the
the ospf routing.  But I am making some assumptions here.  I am assuming
the two routers have connectivity between them sufficient to handle the
required traffic in case one of the upstreams fails (backhaul bandwidth
is at least equal to upstream bandwidth).  Maybe the colleague knew that
the links between the sites were insufficient and that is why both links
were desired on the same physical unit or something.  It is impossible
to sort out other people's networking from short blurbs on a mailing


More information about the NANOG mailing list