<?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 Re: Question about traffic engineering/steering for internal borders in Software-Defined Access (SD-Access)</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623665#M1889</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Gerry, we do have some mechanism in LISP to find the "closest" egress router for a given destination, but it's only for some SD-Access Transit (between fabric sites) use cases, not within a single Fabric Site. Your use case cannot be solved without some code changes. Presumably a single Fabric Site has high bandwidth links meaning latency over any given path (FE1-&amp;gt;Border1-&amp;gt;DC or FE1-&amp;gt;Border2-&amp;gt;DC) would be more or less symmetrical. A few kilometers extra distance traveled is negligible at the speed of light&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="box"&gt;☺.&lt;/SPAN&gt; Best regards, Jerome&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 02:54:25 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jedolphi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-06-03T02:54:25Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Question about traffic engineering/steering for internal borders</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623239#M1887</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi SDA Experts,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;we&amp;nbsp; have a&amp;nbsp; streched serverfarm between two buildings, now we connected this serverfarm with 2x Internal-Border per Building all belonging to the same fabric via eBGP and manual L3-out using sub-interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The serverfarm network is now reachable from the Fabric, however all 4 Internal-Borders have the same LISP Pri/Weight, which means Clients connected to Edge-Nodes may use the Internal-Borders in the other Building instead the local one.&lt;BR /&gt;Is there a way to optimize this behaviour ?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Gerry&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:05:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623239#M1887</guid>
      <dc:creator>gerry.schmucker</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-02T15:05:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about traffic engineering/steering for internal borders</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623665#M1889</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Gerry, we do have some mechanism in LISP to find the "closest" egress router for a given destination, but it's only for some SD-Access Transit (between fabric sites) use cases, not within a single Fabric Site. Your use case cannot be solved without some code changes. Presumably a single Fabric Site has high bandwidth links meaning latency over any given path (FE1-&amp;gt;Border1-&amp;gt;DC or FE1-&amp;gt;Border2-&amp;gt;DC) would be more or less symmetrical. A few kilometers extra distance traveled is negligible at the speed of light&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN class="box"&gt;☺.&lt;/SPAN&gt; Best regards, Jerome&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 02:54:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623665#M1889</guid>
      <dc:creator>jedolphi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-03T02:54:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about traffic engineering/steering for internal borders</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623973#M1890</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Jerome,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In this case we have to live with the sub-optimal routing I guess....&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;thanks for your quick reply and confirmation!&lt;BR /&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Gerry&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2022 09:59:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/question-about-traffic-engineering-steering-for-internal-borders/m-p/4623973#M1890</guid>
      <dc:creator>gerry.schmucker</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-03T09:59:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

