Dear Job and NANOG, Just wondering, wouldn't any of you guys consider using full tables in this case, for the ability to detect and avoid prefix hijacks (using RPKI/ROV or other means)? Of course, I'm focused on security, and I know this is often not a high priority for a real network manager who has many other considerations; just want to know. Thanks. -- Amir On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
Dear Brian,
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 17:40, Brian <brian.bsi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all. I am having a hard time trying to articulate why a Dual Home ISP should have full tables. My understanding has always been that full tables when dual homed allow much more control. Especially in helping to prevent Async routes.
The advantage of receiving full routing tables from both providers is that in cases where one of the two providers is not yet fully converged, your routers will use the other provider for those missing destinations. This may happen during maintenance or router boot-up in your upstream’s network.
Another advantage of receiving full routes is that you can manipulate LOCAL_PREF per destination, or compose routing policy based on per-route attributes such as BGP communities your upstreams set. It can happen that a provider is great for 99% of destinations, except a few - without full tables such granular traffic-engineering can be cumbersome.
Virtually all internet routing is asymmetric, I wouldn’t consider that an issue.
Am I crazy?
I dropped out of university, never completed my psychology studies, I fear I am unqualified to answer this question. ;-)
Kind regards,
Job