[127158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Jun 15 23:47:33 2010
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1006141419250.37213@mail.pil.net>
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:47:17 -0700
To: James Smallacombe <up@3.am>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Most providers will give you just their on net prefixes. This is useful if m=
ultihomed but you do not really need full tables.=20
Then you can default or similar for the rest of the net.=20
Jared Mauch
On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:30 AM, James Smallacombe <up@3.am> wrote:
>=20
> I know this topic must have been covered before, but I can find no search t=
ool for the NANOG archives. I did google and reference Halabi's book as wel=
l as Avi's howto, but I still don't feel I fully understand the pros and con=
s of Full vs. Partial routes in a dual/multihomed network.
>=20
> Cisco's position these days seems to be "you don't need to carry full view=
s unless you like tinkering with optimizig paths and such."
>=20
> Tinkering isn't the issue. Full reachability to servers on this network f=
rom EVERYone, including both upstreams' customers, regardless of the status o=
f each upstream connection is. Ditto in the event that one upstream has som=
e kind of core or regional router meltdown, which I've seen more than once. =
I see conflicting advice as to whether partial routes will suffice for this=
.
>=20
> Helpful links and/or synopsese appreciated.
>=20
> James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor
> up@3.am http://3.am
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
