[175870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Default routes on BGP routers with full feeds
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred)
Wed Nov 5 18:17:13 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:37:36 +0100
From: Fred <fred@web2objects.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54591833.9080608@ispn.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Long time I had the same opinion, however, if someone operates a network
with multiple upstream providers the operator should be able to afford a
proper out of band console access which solves this issue completely.
I would only accept a default route on Uplinks where I am only receiving
a partial table for rescue purpose.
Blake Hudson:
> I often opt to leave one or more default routes configured with low
> priority (lower than BGP). The thinking is that if there is a fault with
> BGP, the router will still operate and the fault can be corrected
> remotely (in-band). The downside is that I might pass traffic for
> non-existing destinations an additional hop and put the load of
> generating an ICMP unreachable on someone else's router.
>
> --Blake
>
>
> Berry Mobley wrote on 11/4/2014 11:47 AM:
>> I'm wondering how many of you who are multihomed also add default
>> routes pointing to your providers from whom you are receiving full feeds.
>>
>> If so, why? If not, why not?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Berry
>>
>
