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.
--
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