On 22 June 2016 at 22:04, David Charlebois <dcharlebois@gmail.com> wrote:
In our case, we advertise a single /24 from our head office to 2 upstream providers. The routing is %100 for redundancy.
The full table is in many cases overrated. If both your transits are good service providers, you do not gain much by trying to get even better routing compared to what the single homed customers of each provider is getting. And that is basically what you are trying by taking in full tables. The only thing to be beware of is some so called Tier 1 providers that have bad interconnectivity to other Tier 1 providers. For example, neither Cogent nor HE will give you a full view of the IPv6 network because these two guys are in a peering war, so they miss the routes from the other network. Taking in full tables allows you to select the correct provider for the (relatively few) trouble routes, but note that you will still have a problem if one link is down. The fix is to use smaller regional transit providers, with each provider having multiple transits of his own. For a feed with default route you can use the most basic BGP speaking switch. Those are available for 1k USD or less. The ZTE switches we use are in that range with copper ports and no 10G. Or you can get a Mikrotik RB2011 for $99. Or you can keep the full feed and use a Linux/BSD server for routing with BIRD og Quagga. At 1G speed a server is going to do the job trivially. If you want to be advanced, get two servers, one for each transit. Redundancy on the LAN side can be provided by VRRP. Regards, Baldur