BGP Design question.
bret at getjive.com
Wed Jun 22 22:27:26 UTC 2011
Here is my current setup in ASCII art. (Please view in a fixed width font.) Below the art I'll write out the setup.
| Peer A | | Peer A | <-Many carriers. Using 1 carrier
+---+----+ +----+---+ for this scenario.
|eBGP | eBGP
| Router +----+ Router | <-Netiron CERs Routers.
|A `.P A.' |P <-A/P indicates Active/Passive
| `. .' | link.
| :: |
|Act. FW | |Pas. FW | <-Firewalls Active/Passive.
To keep this scenario simple, I'm multihoming to one carrier.
I have two Netiron CERs. Each have a eBGP connection to the same peer.
The CERs have an iBGP connection to each other.
That works all fine and dandy. Feel free to comment, however if you think there is a better way to do this.
Here comes the tricky part. I have two firewalls in an Active/Passive setup. When one fails the other is configured exactly the same
and picks up where the other left off. (Yes, all the sessions etc. are actively mirrored between the devices)
I am using OSPFv2 between the CERs and the Firewalls. Failover works just fine, however when I fail an OSPF link that has the active default route, ingress traffic still routes fine and dandy, but egress traffic doesn't. Both Netiron's OSPF are setup to advertise they are the default route.
What I'm wondering is, if OSPF is the right solution for this. How do others solve this problem?
Note: Since lately ipv6 has been a hot topic, I'll state that after we get the BGP all figured out and working properly, ipv6 is our next project. :)
More information about the NANOG