[127133] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Mon Jun 14 15:10:58 2010
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006141419250.37213@mail.pil.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:08:08 -0700
To: James Smallacombe <up@3.am>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:30 AM, James Smallacombe wrote:
> Cisco's position these days seems to be "you don't need to carry full =
views unless you like tinkering with optimizig paths and such."
Not sure why Cisco's position is relevant, but let me restate it.
Cisco will happily sell you all the memory you care to pay for. That =
said, for an edge network with a competent upstream, full routes are =
generally not as useful as one might expect. You're at least as well off =
with default routes for your upstreams plus what we call "Optimized Edge =
Routing", which allows you to identify (dynamically, for each =
prefix/peer you care about) which of your various ISPs gives you a route =
that *you* would prefer in terms of reachability and RTT. In the words =
of a prominent hardware store in my region, "you can do it, we can =
help".=
