ADD SOME TEXT THROUGH CUSTOMIZER

BGP Path Selection – Visualized Case Study – Design Foundations Series

This blog aims to use a visualized approach, a new way to describe designs in over simplified manner, where diagrams and figures are mainly used to explain this topic. (there is nothing better than diagrams and figures to explain designs)!

 

Do you think, the above solution may introduce asymmetrical routing? if yes, why? and how can you avoid it?

 

 

Do we need to use BGP next-hop-self here at the border routers? why?

Marwan Al-shawi – CCDE No. 20130066, Google Cloud Certified Architect, AWS Certified Solutions Architect, Cisco Press author (author of the Top Cisco Certifications’ Design Books “CCDE Study Guide and the upcoming CCDP Arch 4th Edition”). He is Experienced Technical Architect. Marwan has been in the networking industry for more than 12 years and has been involved in architecting, designing, and implementing various large-scale networks, some of which are global service provider-grade networks. Marwan holds a Master of Science degree in internetworking from the University of Technology, Sydney. Marwan enjoys helping and assessing others, Therefore, he was selected as a Cisco Designated VIP by the Cisco Support Community (CSC) (official Cisco Systems forums) in 2012, and by the Solutions and Architectures subcommunity in 2014. In addition, Marwan was selected as a member of the Cisco Champions program in 2015 and 2016.

2 Comments

  • Aasim says:

    Well. Great scenario

  • Younes says:

    Hello,

    Req1 :

    Asymetrical routing may happen because nothing influence the traffic inbound (AS200=>AS100), we have to tweak BGP attributes (LOcal Pref or ASPath) so D prefer always B.

    Req2 :

    Next-hop-self is required because we nee two different next hops so X can perform multipathing,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Order Now