Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or is the service provider charging extra for the full table. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqbool@madbull.info> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:10:51 AM Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
Thanks,
So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.
-----Original Message----- From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:faisal@snappytelecom.net] Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06 To: Maqbool Hashim Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full routes.
Or putting it another way.... Taking full routes offers the most flexibility, anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise) to overcome some existing resource limitations...
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqbool@madbull.info> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
Hi,
We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this document from NANOG presentations:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rj a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fna nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&u sg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
- Be nice to make some cost savings
We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rough" approach for us would be:
- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
- Take defaults from both and pref one
Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most welcome!
Many Thanks