Re: BGP prefix filter list

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

As an eyeball network myself, you'll probably want to look at those things. You don't need to run a CDN to know where 
your bits are going. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ca By" <cb.list6 () gmail com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "Dan White" <dwhite () olp net>, nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 2:14:21 PM 
Subject: Re: BGP prefix filter list 







On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net > wrote: 




You can't do uRPF if you're not taking full routes. 





I would never do uRPF , i am not a transit shop, so no problem there. BCP38 is as sexy as i get. 


<blockquote>





You also have a more limited set of information for analytics if you don't have full routes. 



</blockquote>



Yep, i don’t run a sophisticate internet CDN either. Just pumping packets from eyeballs to clouds and back, mostly. 


<blockquote>






----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



From: "Ca By" < cb.list6 () gmail com > 
To: "Dan White" < dwhite () olp net > 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 1:50:41 PM 




Subject: Re: BGP prefix filter list 







On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dan White < dwhite () olp net > wrote: 

<blockquote>
On 05/15/19 13:58 +0000, Phil Lavin wrote: 
> > We're an eyeball network. We accept default routes from our transit 
> > providers so in theory there should be no impact on reachability. 
> >
> > I'm pretty concerned about things that I don't know due to inefficient 
> > routing, e.g. customers hitting a public anycast DNS server in the wrong 
> > location resulting in Geolocation issues. 
>
> Ah! Understood. The default route(s) was the bit I missed. Makes a lot of 
> sense if you can't justify buying new routers. 
>
> Have you seen issues with Anycast routing thus far? One would assume that 
> routing would still be fairly efficient unless you're picking up transit 
> from non-local providers over extended L2 links. 

We've had no issues so far but this was a recent change. There was no 
noticeable change to outbound traffic levels. 

</blockquote>



+1, there is no issue with this approach. 


i have been taking “provider routes” + default for a long time, works great. 


This makes sure you use each provider’s “customer cone” and SLA to the max while reducing your route load / churn. 


IMHO, you should only take full routes if your core business is providing full bgp feeds to downstrean transit 
customers. 


<blockquote>

-- 
Dan White 
BTC Broadband 
Network Admin Lead 
Ph 918.366.0248 (direct) main: (918)366-8000 
Fax 918.366.6610 email: dwhite () mybtc com 
http://www.btcbroadband.com 

</blockquote>


</blockquote>