If your traffic is small, you could setup a VyOS box. You can still get redundancy by having two switches, each one connected to an upstream provider receiving a default route. Then hookup your VyOS router to each switch and receive full routes to that. You will need a /29 subnet from your providers to pull this off. If your VyOS box goes down for whatever reason, you will failover to using one or the other switch. Announce your prefixes using the BGP session on each switch so that your inbound traffic doesn't hit the VyOS box. -- Jason Canady Unlimited Net, LLC Responsive, Reliable, Secure www.unlimitednet.us jason@unlimitednet.us twitter: @unlimitednet On 5/29/15 4:36 AM, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
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:
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