[MLB-WIRELESS] OSPF BGP

Wed Jun 22 12:29:30 EST 2005

Well here is my BGP config that i am using between fuu and node fut,
I have noticed that the route to fuu dosent seem to disapear as much with bgp as it did when i was using ospf, They only exchange info about once a minute And it is tcp.
This is a very basic setup.

basically node fuu has my ip 10.10.128.100 and my as number

! -*- bgp -*-
!
! BGPd configuration file
!
! $Id: bgpd.conf,v 1.1.1.1 2002/12/13 20:15:29 Paul Exp $
!
hostname bgpd
password XXXXX
enable password XXXXX
!
!bgp multiple-instance
!
router bgp 7675
! you are not allowed to use this number 7675 it is public
bgp router-id 10.10.129.145
redistribute ospf
redistribute connected
network 10.0.0.0/8
neighbor 10.10.128.97 remote-as 7676
! neighbor 10.10.128.97 distribute-list local_nets in
! neighbor 10.10.128.97 route-map set-nexthop out
! neighbor 10.10.128.97 ebgp-multihop
! neighbor 10.10.128.97 next-hop-self
!
access-list all permit any
!
!route-map set-nexthop permit 10
! match ip address all
! set ip next-hop 10.0.0.1
!
debug bgp events
debug bgp filters
debug bgp fsm
debug bgp keepalives
debug bgp updates
!log file bgpd.log
!
log stdout

ivile01 at yahoo.com.au | ivile at ivile.bur.st
http://bur.st/~ivile (waveguides) | http://ivile.bur.st | http://ivile.bur.st/ivile/64/ (my car)
http://www.melbourne.wireless.org.au/users/?ivile
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigel" <thenigel at hotmail.com>
To: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:22 AM
Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] OSPF BGP

> Dan, and others,
> 
> Thank you for the nice comments on my router webpage. It appears
> that a lot of people don't really know how to set up OSPF or BGP (me
> being one of them!).
> 
> I think it would be a good idea to give a presentation on routing for
> the Melbourne wireless network, bearing in mind that a lot of us are
> not computer, network or linux gurus. It would be nice to go over
> the basics as well as some of the Melbourne wireless requirements,
> like dead intervals and costs.
> 
> Do we have any volunteers?????
> 
> Nigel
> node GWS
> 
> 
> ------------
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, what would you suggest for GHO? Are three 2.4GHz interfaces -
> each on
> a different channel serving a different area - not an improvement
> over a
> single interface? A 5.8GHz interface is also planned. At the moment
> the
> idea is to allow people to connect from wherever they can to do signal
> strength and data rate testing. We should also start experimenting
> with
> network Quality-of-Service (QoS) applications and be measuring their
> usefulness.
> 
> FYI, as of this writing:
> 
> GHO-North has two OSPF clients:
> 10.10.129.3 Node GWS - nice webpage and propagating 13 /28 subnets!
> - also propagating 127.0.0.1. Naughty!
> 10.10.129.4 Node IKD - no webpage and is propagating 192.168.20.0/24
> - and 192.168.60.0/24 onto the network. Naughty!
> - nice work on the long link though. :)
> 
> GHO-South also has two OSPF clients:
> 10.10.130.178 Node GES - propagating 4 /28 subnet, a /30 and a nice
> webpage
> 10.10.130.180 Node FKR - propagating 3 /28 subnets. (no webpage on the
> router)
> 
> GHO-Mobile has one OSPF client:
> 10.10.131.70 - Node FUT - propagating 3 /28 subnets and a nice webpage
> 
> Running ARP on the GHO router reveals no other clients connected at
> all.
> 
> Of course, too many clients on any one AP will cause it to slow right
> down
> with hidden-node problems - negating GHO's usefulness. So I believe
> the
> longer-term plan is to work out who are the best candidate nodes to
> retain a
> permanent direct-link to GHO. Once chosen, only they will be allowed
> access. I would hope that the method used to choose these nodes is
> fair and
> open, and provides the best technical outcome for the overall network.
> Perhaps some generally-agreed-upon official guidelines should be
> drawn up so
> that everyone is clear on what is required to become a permanent
> client of
> Node GHO. If we don't I can see GHO becoming a source of discontent
> and
> dissatisfaction once again.
> 
> At this point I'd say that the most likely nodes to be allowed to
> retain a
> GHO connection are those who serve traffic to a cluster of Melbourne
> Wireless nodes. GHO is too important to allow permanent leaf-node
> access,
> except maybe on the "GHO-Mobile" interface, or to providers of
> important
> content to the network.
> 
> The point is important enough to be made again:
> For technical reasons, GHO cannot offer open-slather access if it is
> to be
> truly useful to the Melbourne Wireless network. Just because you
> *can*
> connect to it doesn't necessarily mean you *should* connect to it.
> If you
> can connect to a more local node, please do so. If you can set up a
> multi-radio routing node in your area, even better!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wireless.org.au/pipermail/melbwireless/attachments/20050622/267d3da2/attachment.html>