Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
I think partial routes makes perfect sense, makes sense that traffic for customers who are connected to each of my upstreams should go out of the correct BGP link as long as they are up! Now I need to start thinking of BGP router choices, sure I have a plethora of choices :-( On Sun 10:01 PM , Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
Hi,
Ok thanks for clearing that up. I'm getting some good feedback on applying for PI and ASN through Ripe LIRs over on the UKNOF so I think I have a handle on this. With regards to BGP and using separate BGP routers. I am announcing my PI space to my upstreams, but I don't need to carry a full Internet routing table, correct? So I can get away with some "lightweight" BGP routers not being an ISP if that makes sense?
Most will give you three choices: full routes, partial routes (internal, their customers) with default, and default only. If you can't swing full routes then I would go for partial routes as it will at least send traffic for each ISP and their customers directly to them rather than randomly over the other link. It all depends on what you're going to use as your BGP speaking platform.
~Seth
adel@baklawasecrets.com wrote:
I think partial routes makes perfect sense, makes sense that traffic for customers who are connected to each of my upstreams should go out of the correct BGP link as long as they are up! Now I need to start thinking of BGP router choices, sure I have a plethora of choices :-(
Personally I'll always go for full routes if the router has enough memory (software based) or TCAM space (hardware based). Cheaper to do on software platforms though. An entry level Cisco 2811 can take full tables from multiple upstreams with 786MB RAM or even 512. It won't push 100 meg of mixed traffic though. ~Seth
participants (2)
-
adelï¼ baklawasecrets.com
-
Seth Mattinen