[135216] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Dual Homed BGP for failover
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Kim)
Tue Jan 18 14:57:24 2011
From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim@brandontek.com>
To: <jbates@brightok.net>, <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:57:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4D35E612.6010200@brightok.net>
Cc: ayousuf0079@gmail.com, nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Someone should advise him that if he wants to take in a full BGP routing ta=
ble
that he makes sure his router can handle it! I would hate for him to open t=
he floodgates
and his production router shuts down. LOL....
> Date: Tue=2C 18 Jan 2011 13:12:18 -0600
> From: jbates@brightok.net
> To: bill@herrin.us
> Subject: Re: Dual Homed BGP for failover
> CC: ayousuf0079@gmail.com=3B nanog@nanog.org
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 1/18/2011 1:00 PM=2C William Herrin wrote:
> > IMO=2C that would be a mistake. Taking significantly less than a full
> > table severely limits your options for balancing traffic between the
> > links.
> >
>=20
> It should also be noted that taking a full table=2C doesn't mean you have=
=20
> to use the full table. Apply filters to smaller routes or long ASPATHs=20
> that you don't want=2C and then assign preferences=2C communities=2C prep=
ends=2C=20
> etc as necessary for the routes you actually accept.
>=20
> This means your sync time is longer and you'll have more updates=2C but i=
t=20
> will still keep the local routing table much lower.
>=20
>=20
> Jack
>=20
=
