Mixing
PP BGP Load Balancing with JUNOS
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
So we've got a couple of BGP upstream providers, whom both are providing us with their full internet routing tables.
What we are now wanting to do, is utilize both providers, rather than just one being preferred and the other on standby.
Reading through most of this document from Juniper.
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/bgp-multipath-unequal.html
Which, although talks about Unequal Paths, which some are, and some arent. It refers to only balancing between a set of BGP peers whom use the same ASN.
My question is, how do I apply this, to two different BGP peers from different ASNs?
We have our BGP peers configured in groups, if you're asking.
TIA,
D
bgp load-balancing
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
So we've got a couple of BGP upstream providers, whom both are providing us with their full internet routing tables.
What we are now wanting to do, is utilize both providers, rather than just one being preferred and the other on standby.
Reading through most of this document from Juniper.
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/bgp-multipath-unequal.html
Which, although talks about Unequal Paths, which some are, and some arent. It refers to only balancing between a set of BGP peers whom use the same ASN.
My question is, how do I apply this, to two different BGP peers from different ASNs?
We have our BGP peers configured in groups, if you're asking.
TIA,
D
bgp load-balancing
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
1
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
So we've got a couple of BGP upstream providers, whom both are providing us with their full internet routing tables.
What we are now wanting to do, is utilize both providers, rather than just one being preferred and the other on standby.
Reading through most of this document from Juniper.
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/bgp-multipath-unequal.html
Which, although talks about Unequal Paths, which some are, and some arent. It refers to only balancing between a set of BGP peers whom use the same ASN.
My question is, how do I apply this, to two different BGP peers from different ASNs?
We have our BGP peers configured in groups, if you're asking.
TIA,
D
bgp load-balancing
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
So we've got a couple of BGP upstream providers, whom both are providing us with their full internet routing tables.
What we are now wanting to do, is utilize both providers, rather than just one being preferred and the other on standby.
Reading through most of this document from Juniper.
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/example/bgp-multipath-unequal.html
Which, although talks about Unequal Paths, which some are, and some arent. It refers to only balancing between a set of BGP peers whom use the same ASN.
My question is, how do I apply this, to two different BGP peers from different ASNs?
We have our BGP peers configured in groups, if you're asking.
TIA,
D
bgp load-balancing
bgp load-balancing
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
asked 4 hours ago
Unwittingly Simple
283
283
1
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago
1
1
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Per packet load balancing via upstream networks is a bad idea, performance will suffer from out of order packets (which you will have no control over).
If you want to balance traffic between your upstreams, the smart thing to do is to set local preference on specific prefixes or ASNs you've learned so that traffic to those prefixes is preferred via a specific upstream. This will not be perfect either since it's not a very fine grained method, but it can give you a better balance for outbound traffic between upstreams.
For example, you can prefer traffic to and via AS 1234 and 2345 this way:
policy-statement transit1-preferred
from as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1;
then
local-preference 220;
accept;
as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1
as-path ASN1 ".* 1234 .*";
as-path ASN2 ".* 2345 .*";
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Per packet load balancing via upstream networks is a bad idea, performance will suffer from out of order packets (which you will have no control over).
If you want to balance traffic between your upstreams, the smart thing to do is to set local preference on specific prefixes or ASNs you've learned so that traffic to those prefixes is preferred via a specific upstream. This will not be perfect either since it's not a very fine grained method, but it can give you a better balance for outbound traffic between upstreams.
For example, you can prefer traffic to and via AS 1234 and 2345 this way:
policy-statement transit1-preferred
from as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1;
then
local-preference 220;
accept;
as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1
as-path ASN1 ".* 1234 .*";
as-path ASN2 ".* 2345 .*";
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Per packet load balancing via upstream networks is a bad idea, performance will suffer from out of order packets (which you will have no control over).
If you want to balance traffic between your upstreams, the smart thing to do is to set local preference on specific prefixes or ASNs you've learned so that traffic to those prefixes is preferred via a specific upstream. This will not be perfect either since it's not a very fine grained method, but it can give you a better balance for outbound traffic between upstreams.
For example, you can prefer traffic to and via AS 1234 and 2345 this way:
policy-statement transit1-preferred
from as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1;
then
local-preference 220;
accept;
as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1
as-path ASN1 ".* 1234 .*";
as-path ASN2 ".* 2345 .*";
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Per packet load balancing via upstream networks is a bad idea, performance will suffer from out of order packets (which you will have no control over).
If you want to balance traffic between your upstreams, the smart thing to do is to set local preference on specific prefixes or ASNs you've learned so that traffic to those prefixes is preferred via a specific upstream. This will not be perfect either since it's not a very fine grained method, but it can give you a better balance for outbound traffic between upstreams.
For example, you can prefer traffic to and via AS 1234 and 2345 this way:
policy-statement transit1-preferred
from as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1;
then
local-preference 220;
accept;
as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1
as-path ASN1 ".* 1234 .*";
as-path ASN2 ".* 2345 .*";
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
Per packet load balancing via upstream networks is a bad idea, performance will suffer from out of order packets (which you will have no control over).
If you want to balance traffic between your upstreams, the smart thing to do is to set local preference on specific prefixes or ASNs you've learned so that traffic to those prefixes is preferred via a specific upstream. This will not be perfect either since it's not a very fine grained method, but it can give you a better balance for outbound traffic between upstreams.
For example, you can prefer traffic to and via AS 1234 and 2345 this way:
policy-statement transit1-preferred
from as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1;
then
local-preference 220;
accept;
as-path-group PREFERRED-VIA-TRANSIT1
as-path ASN1 ".* 1234 .*";
as-path ASN2 ".* 2345 .*";
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
answered 4 hours ago
Teun Vink♦
10.3k52551
10.3k52551
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54253%2fpp-bgp-load-balancing-with-junos%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
If you receive full tables from your upstreams, your router should chose a best path for each route so there should be some balance between the uplinks. Per packet loadbalancing over multiple external networks is a bad idea, out of order packets can kill your performance then. It would be useful to share your configurations and describe your topology in more detail.
– Teun Vink♦
4 hours ago
Ah, yes! Thank you for that. Yes, actually links are some what balanced. I guess I'm probably still thinking as if I was connected only one provider, rather than having two.
– Unwittingly Simple
4 hours ago
Even with a single provider, it can be a really bad idea.
– Ron Maupin♦
24 mins ago