BGP convergence issueInbound BGP load-balancing from same ISP routerBest practice for the combination of HSRP and ECMPImpact of IOS BGP soft-reconfiguration-inbound and peering optionsBGP - source routing breaking for some routesTwo ISP bgp topology?WAN connectivity down when BGP neighborship formedBYO thoughts on BGP routingBGP Route Dampaning - Not directly connected eBGP peers - EventsCisco BGP Graceful Restart behaviorlocal pref question
Is an early checkout possible at a hotel before its reception opens?
Why would future John risk sending back a T-800 to save his younger self?
When conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision
Find the Factorial From the Given Prime Relationship
Watts vs. Volt Amps
"You've got another thing coming" - translation into French
Implement Homestuck's Catenative Doomsday Dice Cascader
Smooth switching between 12 V batteries, with a toggle switch
How do I write "Show, Don't Tell" as a person with Asperger Syndrome?
What could have caused a rear derailleur to end up in the back wheel suddenly?
Passing multiple files through stdin (over ssh)
Inconsistent behavior of compiler optimization of unused string
Why only the fundamental frequency component is said to give useful power?
Random Unitary Matrices
How to Analytically Solve this PDE?
What's up with this leaf?
Should I compare a std::string to "string" or "string"s?
Frame failure sudden death?
Is the term 'open source' a trademark?
What can I, as a user, do about offensive reviews in App Store?
How to chain Python function calls so the behaviour is as follows
Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?
Facebook Marketing API asset access suddenly denied
Using a found spellbook as a Sorcerer-Wizard multiclass
BGP convergence issue
Inbound BGP load-balancing from same ISP routerBest practice for the combination of HSRP and ECMPImpact of IOS BGP soft-reconfiguration-inbound and peering optionsBGP - source routing breaking for some routesTwo ISP bgp topology?WAN connectivity down when BGP neighborship formedBYO thoughts on BGP routingBGP Route Dampaning - Not directly connected eBGP peers - EventsCisco BGP Graceful Restart behaviorlocal pref question
I have 2 different carriers on my router and I have set weight to 350 for my first carrier to force it for my outbound traffic, and I set second carrier weight to 300.
I am receiving BGP full table from both providers.
My problem here is when my BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, it takes about 5-10 minutes for the routes received from carrier #1 to be deleted from my routing table so to force my outbound to second carrier.
How can I solve this issue? Is there anyway when BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, all routes are removed immediately ?
cisco routing bgp
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
|
show 3 more comments
I have 2 different carriers on my router and I have set weight to 350 for my first carrier to force it for my outbound traffic, and I set second carrier weight to 300.
I am receiving BGP full table from both providers.
My problem here is when my BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, it takes about 5-10 minutes for the routes received from carrier #1 to be deleted from my routing table so to force my outbound to second carrier.
How can I solve this issue? Is there anyway when BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, all routes are removed immediately ?
cisco routing bgp
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
2
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
3
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
3
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
I have 2 different carriers on my router and I have set weight to 350 for my first carrier to force it for my outbound traffic, and I set second carrier weight to 300.
I am receiving BGP full table from both providers.
My problem here is when my BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, it takes about 5-10 minutes for the routes received from carrier #1 to be deleted from my routing table so to force my outbound to second carrier.
How can I solve this issue? Is there anyway when BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, all routes are removed immediately ?
cisco routing bgp
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
I have 2 different carriers on my router and I have set weight to 350 for my first carrier to force it for my outbound traffic, and I set second carrier weight to 300.
I am receiving BGP full table from both providers.
My problem here is when my BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, it takes about 5-10 minutes for the routes received from carrier #1 to be deleted from my routing table so to force my outbound to second carrier.
How can I solve this issue? Is there anyway when BGP session with carrier #1 disconnects, all routes are removed immediately ?
cisco routing bgp
cisco routing bgp
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
edited 1 hour ago
Ron Trunk
42.5k33989
42.5k33989
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
asked 12 hours ago
BlackmetalBlackmetal
284
284
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
2
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
3
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
3
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
2
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
3
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
3
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
2
2
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
3
3
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
3
3
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There are two issues here:
BGP keepalives are 60 seconds, and the hold down timer is 3 times that. So that's your lower limit, unless you work with your carrier and adjust your timers. You both need to have the same timer values.
You are receiving full routes from both carriers. That's over 400,000 routes from each carrier. So your router needs to process that many entries when a carrier drops a session. That can take time on a small router like a 2900.
One idea is to only receive default routes from your carrier. You can still use local preference to prioritize carriers, but it's much faster to process one route than 400,000. Don't forget that you are still limited by #1.
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Another solution, as suggested by @ronmaupin 's comment, is to not accept any BGP routes at all and instead use static default routes (with different administrative distance for each ISP) along with object tracking.
You can ping an internal router of the ISP with IP SLA and use that to track the default route. That will fail over in a few seconds, instead of 3 minutes for BGP.
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59565%2fbgp-convergence-issue%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are two issues here:
BGP keepalives are 60 seconds, and the hold down timer is 3 times that. So that's your lower limit, unless you work with your carrier and adjust your timers. You both need to have the same timer values.
You are receiving full routes from both carriers. That's over 400,000 routes from each carrier. So your router needs to process that many entries when a carrier drops a session. That can take time on a small router like a 2900.
One idea is to only receive default routes from your carrier. You can still use local preference to prioritize carriers, but it's much faster to process one route than 400,000. Don't forget that you are still limited by #1.
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
There are two issues here:
BGP keepalives are 60 seconds, and the hold down timer is 3 times that. So that's your lower limit, unless you work with your carrier and adjust your timers. You both need to have the same timer values.
You are receiving full routes from both carriers. That's over 400,000 routes from each carrier. So your router needs to process that many entries when a carrier drops a session. That can take time on a small router like a 2900.
One idea is to only receive default routes from your carrier. You can still use local preference to prioritize carriers, but it's much faster to process one route than 400,000. Don't forget that you are still limited by #1.
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
There are two issues here:
BGP keepalives are 60 seconds, and the hold down timer is 3 times that. So that's your lower limit, unless you work with your carrier and adjust your timers. You both need to have the same timer values.
You are receiving full routes from both carriers. That's over 400,000 routes from each carrier. So your router needs to process that many entries when a carrier drops a session. That can take time on a small router like a 2900.
One idea is to only receive default routes from your carrier. You can still use local preference to prioritize carriers, but it's much faster to process one route than 400,000. Don't forget that you are still limited by #1.
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
There are two issues here:
BGP keepalives are 60 seconds, and the hold down timer is 3 times that. So that's your lower limit, unless you work with your carrier and adjust your timers. You both need to have the same timer values.
You are receiving full routes from both carriers. That's over 400,000 routes from each carrier. So your router needs to process that many entries when a carrier drops a session. That can take time on a small router like a 2900.
One idea is to only receive default routes from your carrier. You can still use local preference to prioritize carriers, but it's much faster to process one route than 400,000. Don't forget that you are still limited by #1.
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 10 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
42.5k33989
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
– Teun Vink♦
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
your mean is if i use local pref instead weight , it will process routes faster ? so in a case when one of my bgp session drop local pref change to second provider faster than weight atribute?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
@Blackmetal No. I assumed you meant local preference because of the value (350). Weight is usually a much higher value. But it's the same problem either way.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
yes i know higher local pref will be better than weight, so if i use local pref i do not get faster route proccess when my bgp session disable?
– Blackmetal
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
– Ron Trunk
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Another solution, as suggested by @ronmaupin 's comment, is to not accept any BGP routes at all and instead use static default routes (with different administrative distance for each ISP) along with object tracking.
You can ping an internal router of the ISP with IP SLA and use that to track the default route. That will fail over in a few seconds, instead of 3 minutes for BGP.
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Another solution, as suggested by @ronmaupin 's comment, is to not accept any BGP routes at all and instead use static default routes (with different administrative distance for each ISP) along with object tracking.
You can ping an internal router of the ISP with IP SLA and use that to track the default route. That will fail over in a few seconds, instead of 3 minutes for BGP.
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Another solution, as suggested by @ronmaupin 's comment, is to not accept any BGP routes at all and instead use static default routes (with different administrative distance for each ISP) along with object tracking.
You can ping an internal router of the ISP with IP SLA and use that to track the default route. That will fail over in a few seconds, instead of 3 minutes for BGP.
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
Another solution, as suggested by @ronmaupin 's comment, is to not accept any BGP routes at all and instead use static default routes (with different administrative distance for each ISP) along with object tracking.
You can ping an internal router of the ISP with IP SLA and use that to track the default route. That will fail over in a few seconds, instead of 3 minutes for BGP.
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
answered 9 hours ago
Ron TrunkRon Trunk
42.5k33989
42.5k33989
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
i just tried change my parameter from weight to local prefrence and then shutdown my interface and i see right now it takes 1 minutes and 30 seconds for change to carrier 2! there is much difference between local pref and weight, anyone knows why ?
– Blackmetal
7 hours ago
1
1
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
– Ron Trunk
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f59565%2fbgp-convergence-issue%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is it really 5-10 minutes, or is it 3 minutes (normal BGP timers)? When things stop working, it can seem like forever.
– Ron Trunk
11 hours ago
it takes about at least 5m, so whats your idea for solve this? how can if force immediately set next hop to my backup provider?
– Blackmetal
11 hours ago
2
A related question: If you prefer one carrier over the other, why are you receiving full routes? Why not a default route only? Processing 500,000 routes takes significant time, especially on a small router).
– Ron Trunk
10 hours ago
3
You do not need the full routing table to have backups the way you describe; you only need default routes with different ADs. You could then have a faster failover.
– Ron Maupin♦
10 hours ago
3
A Cisco 2921, seriously? I'm amazed it's even able to hold 2 full tables. The root cause of your problems is that the CPU in those boxes are not able to cope with losing a full table. Either switch to defaults only (as was suggested in some answers) or upgrade to a model which was designed for this purpose.
– Teun Vink♦
7 hours ago