[119143] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adel@baklawasecrets.com)
Sun Nov 8 17:14:23 2009
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:13:44 +0000
From: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Reply-To: adel@baklawasecrets.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think partial routes makes perfect sense, makes sense that traffic for cu=
stomers 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,
> >=20
> > 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?
> >=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> ~Seth
>=20
>=20
>=20
