[180289] in North American Network Operators' Group
BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Maqbool Hashim)
Sun May 31 02:39:31 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Maqbool Hashim <maqbool@madbull.info>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:36:34 +0000
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load=
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as effi=
ciently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to=
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this docum=
ent from NANOG presentations:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=3Dt&rct=3Dj&q=3D&esrc=3Ds&source=3Dweb&cd=3D1=
&cad=3Drja&uact=3D8&ved=3D0CCoQFjAA&url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmee=
tings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=3DcyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4=
oHoAQ&usg=3DAFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=3Dbv.93990622,d.ZGU
The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing t=
ables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents whic=
h suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depend=
s on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
- Be nice to make some cost savings
We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our l=
inks is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance=
utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rou=
gh" approach for us would be:
- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
- Take defaults from both and pref one
Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most wel=
come!
Many Thanks
