Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Join Customer Connection to register!

Modify Weight per AS Path access-list

We are implementing wireless failover for several of our branches.

The wireless failover will be integratesd into our existing MPLS network.

From the HQ perspective, I would like to set the weight on only the branches affected and leave everything else just as it currently is.

Below is how I am thinking about doing this,

AS 1234 will be Branch routes coming from Wireless gateway advertised into BGP and les desirable path from HQ.

as-path access-list 1 are the existing MPLS routes advertised from Branch routers and are to be preferred from HQ.

route-map FIX-WEIGHT permit 10
description Set weight on wireless
match as-path 1234
set weight 1
route-map FIX-WEIGHT permit 20
description Set weight on MPLS
match as-path 1
set weight 50000

ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65002$
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65003$
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65004$
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65005$
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65006$
ip as-path access-list 1 permit ^65077$


Just from the BGP perspective, will this modify the AS paths shown and leave all others unaffected?

John Blakley

Do you have a reason to use this as-path acl for anything other than this? If not, I think this would be too hard to manage in the long run because you'll have to remember to go back and add a new AS in the list when a branch comes up. The easier way would be:

ip as-path access-list 1234 permit ^1234$

route-map Fix-Weight permit 10

match as-path 1234

set weight 1

route-map Fix-Weight permit 20

set weight 50000

Apply this to your neighbor inbound and you should be set.



*** Please rate useful posts ***

HTH, John *** Please rate all useful posts ***

Yes, I just wanted to make sure I only modified what needed to change for these branches

All other routes don't need to be affected by this route-map, so I am leaving them alone.

Most likely, it wouldnt be an issue, but I didn't want to change something when it would not be affected by these branches and this failover scenario.

Plus there are other branch sites not getting this particular type of scenario, we may need to change them to something different in the future.