Otdfbt

Dates on degrees don’t make sense – will people care?

Do I need a shock-proof watch for cycling?

How to make clear to people I don't want to answer their "Where are you from?" question?

Explain why a line can never intersect a plane in exactly two points.

career in signal processing

Cut the gold chain

I don't like coffee, neither beer. How to politely work my way around that in a business situation?

Can I enter the UK for 24 hours from a Schengen area, holding an Indian passport?

How do I farm creepers for XP without them exploding?

Is "Busen" just the area between the breasts?

Methodology: Writing unit tests for another developer

Can humans ever directly see a few photons at a time? Can a human see a single photon?

Why tighten down in a criss-cross pattern?

Can Ogre clerics use Purify Food and Drink on humanoid characters?

Boss wants someone else to lead a project based on the idea I presented to him

What are Elsa's reasons for selecting the Holy Grail on behalf of Donovan?

How to parse 「場合でも」

Putting a plot inside a tab

Why do all the teams that I have worked with always finish a sprint without completion of all the stories?

Is there a term for the belief that "if it's legal, it's moral"?

Pythagorean trigonometry identity

Will generated tokens be progressively stronger when using Cathar's Crusade and Sorin, Grim Nemesis?

What does it mean to not be able to take the derivative of a function multiple times?

Why does Linux list NVMe drives as /dev/nvme0 instead of /dev/sda?

BGP convergence issue

Output Drops on Serial interface: Better queueing or Output queue size?Impact of IOS BGP soft-reconfiguration-inbound and peering optionsTwo ISP bgp topology?BGP Route Dampaning - Not directly connected eBGP peers - EventsStruggling inbound and outbound traffic engineering to/from iBGP peers at different POPsCisco BGP Graceful Restart behaviorlocal pref question

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

5

1

I have 2 different carriers on my Cisco 2921 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

share|improve this question

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:50
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  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♦
  Jun 3 at 17:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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♦
  Jun 3 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

5

1

I have 2 different carriers on my Cisco 2921 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

share|improve this question

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:03
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:22
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  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
  Jun 3 at 16:50
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  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♦
  Jun 3 at 17:27
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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♦
  Jun 3 at 19:40
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 6 more comments

I have 2 different carriers on my Cisco 2921 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

share|improve this question

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

share|improve this question

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

share|improve this question

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

edited Jun 4 at 5:06

Teun Vink♦

12.4k53355

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

asked Jun 3 at 14:48

BlackmetalBlackmetal

435

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

7

There are two issues here:

1. 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.




2. 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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
  
  – Teun Vink♦
  Jun 3 at 18:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 18:01
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  Jun 3 at 18:07
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 3 at 18:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That is correct. Too many routes and too weak a router.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:56
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 19:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 1:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  i tried shuting down interface, disbale ip address, shutdown bgp session all of them has same reslt for local pref.
  
  – Blackmetal
  Jun 4 at 4:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  You are confusing two separate things. Using weight or local preference makes no difference. They are both simply prefix attributes. Stopping the routing process or disabling an interface will be faster, because the router knows immediately that routes need to be removed. If you lose a peer, you have to wait up to 3 minutes before you even know that happened.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  

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
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

7

There are two issues here:

1. 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.




2. 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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
  
  – Teun Vink♦
  Jun 3 at 18:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 18:01
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  Jun 3 at 18:07
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 3 at 18:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That is correct. Too many routes and too weak a router.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:56
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

7

There are two issues here:

1. 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.




2. 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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Make that 770k routes per transit provider. BFD could help solve some of the issues with BGP hold timers.
  
  – Teun Vink♦
  Jun 3 at 18:00
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 18:01
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @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
  Jun 3 at 18:07
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Neither one is faster. The problem is you have too many routes to process.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 3 at 18:12
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  That is correct. Too many routes and too weak a router.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:56
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

There are two issues here:

1. 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.




2. 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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

answered Jun 3 at 17:11

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 19:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 1:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  i tried shuting down interface, disbale ip address, shutdown bgp session all of them has same reslt for local pref.
  
  – Blackmetal
  Jun 4 at 4:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  You are confusing two separate things. Using weight or local preference makes no difference. They are both simply prefix attributes. Stopping the routing process or disabling an interface will be faster, because the router knows immediately that routes need to be removed. If you lose a peer, you have to wait up to 3 minutes before you even know that happened.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

6

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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  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
  Jun 3 at 19:48
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Shutting down the interface converges much faster than losing a peer.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 1:21
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  i tried shuting down interface, disbale ip address, shutdown bgp session all of them has same reslt for local pref.
  
  – Blackmetal
  Jun 4 at 4:36
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  You are confusing two separate things. Using weight or local preference makes no difference. They are both simply prefix attributes. Stopping the routing process or disabling an interface will be faster, because the router knows immediately that routes need to be removed. If you lose a peer, you have to wait up to 3 minutes before you even know that happened.
  
  – Ron Trunk
  Jun 4 at 11:54
  

  
  
  
  

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.

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

share|improve this answer

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093

answered Jun 3 at 18:20

Ron TrunkRon Trunk

43.7k34093