If your traffic is small, you could setup a VyOS box. You can still get redundancy by having two switches, each one connected to an upstream provider receiving a default route. Then hookup your VyOS router to each switch and receive full routes to that. You will need a /29 subnet from your providers to pull this off. If your VyOS box goes down for whatever reason, you will failover to using one or the other switch. Announce your prefixes using the BGP session on each switch so that your inbound traffic doesn't hit the VyOS box.

--

Jason Canady
Unlimited Net, LLC
Responsive, Reliable, Secure

www.unlimitednet.us
ja...@unlimitednet.us
twitter: @unlimitednet

On 5/29/15 4:36 AM, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
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=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=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


Reply via email to