<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Leon,<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Is the idea that we truly want to run a primary/backup rather than best path approach? Is this because one path avoids the firewall and the other does not? If so, we need to make sure the attendees know that if the primary link fails, our path is subject to filtering. </div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>- Jim</div><div> </div><div><div><div>On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:23 PM, Xiaoliang Zhao wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">furthermore, we are attempting to use 2x /17s on primary link and /16 on backup link to engineer inbound traffic, it seems easier and more predictable (sorry to worsen the global routing scalability problem, but it won't last long anyway)<br>
<br>thanks,<br>Leon<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Xiaoliang Zhao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xzhao@cernet.edu.cn">xzhao@cernet.edu.cn</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br><br>We are thinking to get default route from our ISPs with the intention to simplify the policy. So the basic idea is we get 0/0 from both primary and backup link via bgp, we do local pref to engineer the traffic. Any thoughts on potential issues?<br>
<br>thanks,<br>Leon<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>ietf79-tech mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ietf79-tech@daedelus.com">ietf79-tech@daedelus.com</a><br>http://www.daedelus.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf79-tech<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>