02-01-2016 01:35 PM - edited 03-05-2019 03:14 AM
Using static routes to control eBGP peering, a R1 has 2 neighbors (R2 and R3). R2 and R3 have VRRP enabled and share a VIP. R1 has static routes for loopbacks on R2 and R3, with the VIP as the next-hop. Is this best practice? What is potential downfall of this architecture?
02-01-2016 03:23 PM
R1 will have to go through VRRP active router to reach the passive router's loopback.You have to use ebgp multihop command to increase TTL value in BGP open message.
Can you directlly point R2 and R3 to reach its loopback from R1.
CF
02-02-2016 01:03 AM
Hi,
more information is needed in order to have a better understanding of the scenario and what you are trying to do.
For the configuration of eBGP peering you have three options: disable connected check, eBGP multihop, or TTL Security Check.
The drawback of using a VIP as next-hop is that it will work depending of how FHRP is configured to handle failure scenarios.
By the way, you have another option here, without using loopbacks, and that would be a single peering session between R1 and the VIP address that share R2-R3.
Best Regards,
Jose.
02-02-2016 10:56 AM
.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide