Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or is the service provider charging extra for the full table.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqb...@madbull.info> > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:10:51 AM > Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? > > Thanks, > > So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a > full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net] > Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06 > To: Maqbool Hashim > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? > > If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of > best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full > routes. > > Or putting it another way.... Taking full routes offers the most > flexibility, anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise) > to overcome some existing resource limitations... > > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqb...@madbull.info> > > To: nanog@nanog.org > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM > > Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? > > > > 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: > > > > > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rj > > a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fna > > nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&u > > sg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU > > > > > > 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 > > > > >
