On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dan White <dwh...@olp.net> wrote: > 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: dwh...@mybtc.com > http://www.btcbroadband.com >
