nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual Homed BGP
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 15:15:05 +0100
lør. 25. jan. 2020 13.42 skrev Tore Anderson <tore () fud no>:
* Baldur NorddahlIf you join any peering exchanges, full tables will be mandatory. Someparties will export prefixes and then expect a more specific prefix received from your transit to override a part of the space received via the peering. That would be a fundamentally flawed expectation, in my opinion.
I do not disagree, however the real world sometimes works differently. Like anycast, people break the rules and gets away with it. In any case, this is from a recent personal experience. We had a problem that led us to drop full tables and run with a default for a while. Nobody noticed the difference, which is why I can confidently say that unless you need the full tables for something, the advantages are somewhat overstated. However one customer found a reachability problem. Turns out that a peer was exporting a /19 prefix through a peering session with us and at another site they exported a /24 from the same space with no routing between sites. Regards Baldur
Current thread:
- Re: Dual Homed BGP, (continued)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Cummings, Chris (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 Baldur Norddahl (Jan 25)
- RE: Dual Homed BGP Aaron Gould (Jan 25)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Anurag Bhatia (Jan 27)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Jon Lewis (Jan 24)