You can't do uRPF if you're not taking full routes. You also have a more limited set of information for analytics if you don't have full routes. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com> To: "Dan White" <dwhite@olp.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:50:41 PM Subject: Re: BGP prefix filter list On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dan White < dwhite@olp.net > wrote: On 05/15/19 13:58 +0000, Phil Lavin wrote:
We're an eyeball network. We accept default routes from our transit providers so in theory there should be no impact on reachability.
I'm pretty concerned about things that I don't know due to inefficient routing, e.g. customers hitting a public anycast DNS server in the wrong location resulting in Geolocation issues.
Ah! Understood. The default route(s) was the bit I missed. Makes a lot of sense if you can't justify buying new routers.
Have you seen issues with Anycast routing thus far? One would assume that routing would still be fairly efficient unless you're picking up transit from non-local providers over extended L2 links.
We've had no issues so far but this was a recent change. There was no noticeable change to outbound traffic levels. +1, there is no issue with this approach. i have been taking “provider routes” + default for a long time, works great. This makes sure you use each provider’s “customer cone” and SLA to the max while reducing your route load / churn. IMHO, you should only take full routes if your core business is providing full bgp feeds to downstrean transit customers. <blockquote> -- Dan White BTC Broadband Network Admin Lead Ph 918.366.0248 (direct) main: (918)366-8000 Fax 918.366.6610 email: dwhite@mybtc.com http://www.btcbroadband.com </blockquote>