<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic BGP Problem (Two ISPs) in Routing and SD-WAN</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297655#M289667</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello !&lt;BR /&gt;I am having trouble with my iBGP routes. I am really confused how to set it up properly. Can anyone tell me about the wrong configurations related to my topology ?&amp;nbsp; (ISP-1 CORE and ISP-2 CORE are Route Reflectors)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;*** This topology should work without any interruption. For Example if Branch-x-isp-1 loses the iBGP neighborship with ISP-Core-RR , traffic should continue from the Banch-x-isp-2 router.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Capture.JPG" style="width: 999px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/4799i180529E2444E1AB5/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Capture.JPG" alt="Capture.JPG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ISP-1 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.64 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.72 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.110.110 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.110 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.110 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ISP-2 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.110.101 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.101 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.101 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.29.51.209 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.29.60.27 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-X-ISP-1&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65001&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.50.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-map LOCAL-PREF in (Sets LP to 600)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-X-ISP-2&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65001&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.50.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.27.107.220&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 route-map LOCAL-PREF in&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;(Sets LP to 500)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-Y-ISP-1&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.60.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-map LOCAL-PREF in&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-Y-ISP-2&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.60.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.27.107.220&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2019 17:39:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-05T17:39:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297655#M289667</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello !&lt;BR /&gt;I am having trouble with my iBGP routes. I am really confused how to set it up properly. Can anyone tell me about the wrong configurations related to my topology ?&amp;nbsp; (ISP-1 CORE and ISP-2 CORE are Route Reflectors)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;*** This topology should work without any interruption. For Example if Branch-x-isp-1 loses the iBGP neighborship with ISP-Core-RR , traffic should continue from the Banch-x-isp-2 router.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Capture.JPG" style="width: 999px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/4799i180529E2444E1AB5/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Capture.JPG" alt="Capture.JPG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ISP-1 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.64 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.64 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.72 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.72 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.110.110 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.110 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.110 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ISP-2 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.110.101 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.101 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.110.101 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.29.51.209 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.51.209 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.29.60.27 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.29.60.27 default-originate&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-X-ISP-1&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65001&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.50.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.11 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-map LOCAL-PREF in (Sets LP to 600)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-X-ISP-2&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65001&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.50.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.50.10 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.27.107.220&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 route-map LOCAL-PREF in&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;(Sets LP to 500)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-Y-ISP-1&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.60.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.11 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.16.0.40 route-map LOCAL-PREF in&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;BRANCH-Y-ISP-2&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt; bgp log-neighbor-changes&lt;BR /&gt; bgp redistribute-internal&lt;BR /&gt; network 10.10.60.0 mask 255.255.255.0&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 route-reflector-client&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 10.10.60.10 next-hop-self&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 remote-as 65000&lt;BR /&gt; neighbor 172.27.107.220 next-hop-self&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;neighbor 172.27.107.220&amp;nbsp;route-reflector-client&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2019 17:39:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297655#M289667</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-05T17:39:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297808#M289671</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You should create a cluster list on the Core router to avoid any trouble. Now if everything is iBGP (they could be all over 65000, RR is used for iBGP only) and the branches are receiving the Internet or external routes from the Core routers you could remove the next-hop-self from them. Route-reflectors should be configured on the Core routers only.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hope it is useful&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:42:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297808#M289671</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio E. Moisa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T12:42:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297821#M289675</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;On the surface it looks like there is way too much route reflecting going on. But you have some AS discrepancies and I think before any suggestion can be provided there needs to be some clarification. For example the ISP1-CORE-RR peering with BRANCH-X-ISP1 says it is AS65000, yet BRANCH-X-ISP1 is actually AS65001.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Can you identify which routers belong to which AS?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:39:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297821#M289675</guid>
      <dc:creator>chrihussey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T12:39:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297890#M289678</link>
      <description>Hi Chris, &lt;BR /&gt;I corrected the AS numbers, it was a typing error just.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:53:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297890#M289678</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T13:53:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297896#M289679</link>
      <description>Hi Julio, what is cluster list ? &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":confused_face:"&gt;😕&lt;/span&gt; Something like bgp peer group ?</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:55:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297896#M289679</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T13:55:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297902#M289680</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Sorry, but where are the corrections?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:56:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297902#M289680</guid>
      <dc:creator>chrihussey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T13:56:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297903#M289681</link>
      <description>I edited my first post, all AS numbers will be 65000</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:58:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3297903#M289681</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T13:58:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298137#M289689</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The cluster id&amp;nbsp;is a BGP command used to avoid loops using more than 1 route-reflector. Please check this link:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://network-101.blogspot.com/2011/06/bgp-cluster-id-loop-prevention.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://network-101.blogspot.com/2011/06/bgp-cluster-id-loop-prevention.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:39:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298137#M289689</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio E. Moisa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T17:39:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298217#M289696</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;To provide some additional information, the topology you have doesn't really allow for route reflectors the way you have things set up. Others may have different ideas but here are two suggestions:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1 - Have both cores peer with all the branch routers, create a cluster ID as Julio has suggested and define the branches as route reflector clients. Do not defined the cores as route reflector clients in the branch routers' peering to the cores. The branches only peer with the two cores. Then have the two cores peer with each other but not as route reflector clients.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2- Don't used route reflector clients at all and have all routers IBGP peer with each other. It is not a large topology and should work fine.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Finally, the assumption is that you are running an IGP (EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS, etc) supporting the BGP.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hope this is of some help.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:21:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298217#M289696</guid>
      <dc:creator>chrihussey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-18T20:21:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298415#M289707</link>
      <description>Hi Julio,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Just to clarify, should i remove next-hop-self from the route reflectors or from the branch routers ?</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 05:42:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298415#M289707</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-19T05:42:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298459#M289709</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Chris,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your offers.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2- Don't used route reflector clients at all and have all routers IBGP peer with each other. It is not a large topology and should work fine. - I should use RR coz this is just a small part of the topology.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:05:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298459#M289709</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-19T07:05:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298659#M289728</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Do you have reachability to all of the&amp;nbsp;rtrs within this ibgp domain, what routing protocol are you running for connectivity for each rtrs links?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;FYI -&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The RR's don’t need to be RR clients to each other and this also applies between the branch rts.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The branch rtrs don’t need ibgp peering to each other as that’s what the RR are for.&lt;BR /&gt;Give both RR a cluster id so each rtr attaching to the their respective RR is known from cluster it is originating from&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;ISP-1 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;cluster-id 10.10.10.10&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;no neighbor 172.16.110.110 route-reflector-client&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ISP-2 CORE RR CONFIG&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;cluster-id 20.20.20.20&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;no neighbor 172.16.110.102 route-reflector-client&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Branch xx&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;no neighbor 10.10.50.11&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;U&gt;Branch xx&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;router bgp 65000&lt;BR /&gt;no neighbor 10.10.50.10&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;etc...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;res &lt;BR /&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 12:06:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3298659#M289728</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T12:06:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3299342#M289779</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Anyone has more comments about the topology ? &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt; Thanks to everybody.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:24:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3299342#M289779</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-20T11:24:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310778#M290543</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello guys,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your great replies. I fixed most of the topology by your comments.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1-I removed the iBGP peering between BRANCHX-ISP1 and BRANCHX-ISP2 (also for BRANCHYISP1-BRANCHY-ISP2)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2-I fixed the unnecessary next-hop-self commands&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;3-I removed the router-reflector-client commands between Core routers. (ISP1CORE and ISP2CORE)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But I just have one problem right now. I configured a same BGP CLUSTER ID value for both ISP1CORE and ISP2CORE. Now I can see just BRANCHX-ISP1 and BRANCHY-ISP1 advertised routes on ISP1CORE.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;But what I need is , I want to see BRANCHX-ISP2 and BRANCHY-ISP2 routes on ISP1CORE as well. (For redundancy). To achieve this goal I want to establish a peering between&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;BRANCHX-ISP2 &amp;lt;-&amp;gt;ISP1CORE&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp;BRANCHY-ISP2 &amp;lt;-&amp;gt;ISP1CORE&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;I am trying to configure ISP1CORE as a RR again for BRANCHX-ISP2 and BRANCHY-ISP2. But configuration fails. When i type show ip bgp summary, peering is not coming UP. It s stuck on IDLE.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;How can I achieve this goal ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:31:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310778#M290543</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T08:31:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310783#M290544</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/159348"&gt;@CSCO12001340&lt;/a&gt; wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello guys,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But I just have one problem right now. I configured a same BGP CLUSTER ID value for both ISP1CORE and ISP2CORE. Now I can see just BRANCHX-ISP1 and BRANCHY-ISP1 advertised routes on ISP1CORE.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Try applying&amp;nbsp; ISP2 a different cluster ID&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;res&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:22:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310783#M290544</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T09:22:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310784#M290545</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;When I do it, ISP1 and ISP2 Cores are sharing routes with each other and that is what i don't want.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 09:29:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310784#M290545</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T09:29:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310803#M290549</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/159348"&gt;@CSCO12001340&lt;/a&gt; wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;When I do it, ISP1 and ISP2 Cores are sharing routes with each other and that is what i don't want.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;They need to for residency ? -&amp;nbsp; as if either if the branches lose connectivity to their one of the two ISP core it will be redundant &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;res&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:14:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310803#M290549</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T11:14:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310805#M290550</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Paul,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;To avoid routing loops, I am using BGP Cluster ID already right ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am trying to do the same solution. If branches lose connectivity to ISP-1, they should go ahead by using ISP-2. So they should receive routes from both RRs.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Now I can see only ISP-1 routes on CoreISP1 and only ISP-2 routes on COREISP2. What I want is see both of them on both Cores and I can manipulate the routes by local preference or sth like that to choose between them.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:25:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310805#M290550</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T11:25:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310822#M290553</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;BR /&gt;Correct but dont forget&amp;nbsp;local preference can be used only to prefer the exit path of the RR ASN not within it.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;RR are basically is used to cut done on the amount of fully meshed peering required between IBGP peers but from your branch ISP you should be seeing routes from either ISP rtrs.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Just reviewed your OP and I am not so sure you even require RR, Your Core ISP rtrs are in a different ASN then the branch rtrs which means you wont even be able to have RR.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My initial suggestion focused on RR hence the example i posted shown all rtr ( core/branch) all in the same ASN, but your topology doesn't show this, So maybe its a totally different approach is required?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Can you please confirm this?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;res&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2018 21:26:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3310822#M290553</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul driver</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-13T21:26:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: BGP Problem (Two ISPs)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3311224#M290616</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Paul,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your help, you are great.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My Cores are in same AS, there is a mistype I think.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 06:24:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/routing-and-sd-wan/bgp-problem-two-isps/m-p/3311224#M290616</guid>
      <dc:creator>CSCO12001340</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-15T06:24:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

