Hello,
Some time ago we had a similar discussion on this list, in that
moment I shared a small study we did in LACNIC but we had it only in
Spanish. Here is the version in English (BGP: To filter or not to filter
by prefix size. That is the question ):
https://aaaa.acostasite.com/2019/07/bgp-to-filter-or-not-to-filter-by.html
Alejandro,
On 6/4/20 11:00 PM, James Breeden wrote:
I have been doing a lot of research recently on operating networks
with partial tables and a default to the rest of the world. Seems like
an easy enough approach for regional networks where you have maybe
only 1 upstream transit and some peering.
I come to NANOG to get feedback from others who may be doing this. We
have 3 upstream transit providers and PNI and public peers in 2
locations. It'd obviously be easy to transition to doing partial
routes for just the peers, etc, but I'm not sure where to draw the
line on the transit providers. I've thought of straight preferencing
one over another. I've thought of using BGP filtering and community
magic to basically allow Transit AS + 1 additional AS (Transit direct
customer) as specific routes, with summarization to default for the
rest. I'm sure there are other thoughts that I haven't had about this
as well....
And before I get asked why not just run full tables, I'm looking at
regional approaches to being able to use smaller, less powerful
routers (or even layer3 switches) to run some areas of the network
where we can benefit from summarization and full tables are really
overkill.
*James W. Breeden*
/Managing Partner/
//
*logo_transparent_background*
*Arenal Group:* Arenal Consulting Group | Acilis Telecom | Pines Media
PO Box 1063 | Smithville, TX 78957
Email: ja...@arenalgroup.co <mailto:ja...@arenalgroup.co> | office
512.360.0000 | www.arenalgroup.co <http://www.arenalgroup.co/>
