[180295] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Maqbool Hashim)
Sun May 31 08:09:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Maqbool Hashim <maqbool@madbull.info>
To: Joseph Jackson <jjackson@aninetworks.net>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 12:09:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <88d8b6ead0414162aa5c947a3062a6f1@mbx080-w4-co-1.exch080.serverpod.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
No the current devices can't support full table (well not from both provide=
rs) we would need to upgrade. Really in terms of cost saving just want to =
make sure to not get charged overages because we utilise too much of one li=
nk and not enough of another. I don't think the shortest AS path will be o=
f that much concern or noticeable for most destinations.
We do however have a set of remote sites which communicate over the Interne=
t to our central sites where the transit providers are. Just general Inter=
net at the remote sites- but traffic from remote sites to central sites wou=
ld be the most important.
I am just not sure of exactly how to define the "partial" routing table cri=
teria to our two providers. Should we just take routes for each provider a=
nd their peers and a default from both?
The main reason for not taking a full routing table is the cost/inconvenien=
ce of upgrading existing hardware.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjackson@aninetworks.net]=20
Sent: 31 May 2015 12:41
To: Maqbool Hashim; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
Can your devices support a full table? =20
You can load balance outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table. =
THo that won't be the shortest AS path. In regards to cost savings how w=
ere you thinking of doing so? Does one provider charge more? Just use the=
cheaper provider.
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Maqbool Hashim
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
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
