nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual Homed BGP
From: Ben Cannon <ben () 6by7 net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:54:45 -0800
Honestly, this. Your only real choice is what of 2 pipes to chuck it out of. Full tables vs partial and a default don’t make the process much more intelligent for 1 site dual homed, and as mentioned routing policy will have more influence. -Ben
On Jan 24, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote: It’s pretty pointless for a small ISP to get full routes, because the BGP tables are so highly manipulated. It’s better to just get “company” routes for each upstream, and then use your own traffic engineering via prepending and static or policy routes to balance the outbound traffic the way you like. -melOn Jan 24, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Brian <brian.bsi () gmail com> wrote: Hello all. I am having a hard time trying to articulate why a Dual Home ISP should have full tables. My understanding has always been that full tables when dual homed allow much more control. Especially in helping to prevent Async routes. Am I crazy?
Current thread:
- Dual Homed BGP Brian (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Mel Beckman (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Ben Cannon (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Cummings, Chris (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Ben Cannon (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Job Snijders (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Chriztoffer Hansen (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Amir Herzberg (Jan 27)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Jay Hennigan (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Gavin Henry (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Baldur Norddahl (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Baldur Norddahl (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Tore Anderson (Jan 25)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Mel Beckman (Jan 24)