nanog mailing list archives
Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams)
From: Pirawat WATANAPONGSE via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 13:27:34 +0700
Dear Guru(s), My apologies if these questions have already been asked; in that case, please kindly point me to the answer(s). I hope the following information sufficiently describes my current "context": - Single customer: ourselves - One big IPv4 block + one big IPv6 block - Native Dual-Stack, Non-tunneling - Non-transit (actually, a “multi-homed Stub”) - “All-green” IRR & RPKI registered (based on IRRexplorer report) - Fully-aggregated route announcement (based on CIDR report) - Two (Cisco) gateway routers on our side - Two upstreams (See the following lines), fully cross-connected to our gateways - One (pure) commercial ISP - One academic consortium ISP (who actually uses the above-mentioned commercial ISP as one of its upstreams as well) My current “situation”: - All inbounds “flock” in through the commercial ISP, overflowing the bandwidth; since (my guess) the academic ISP also uses that commercial ISP as its upstream, there is no way for its path to be shorter. Questions: 1. Do I really have to “de-aggregate” the address blocks, so I can do the “manual BGP load-sharing”? I hate to do it because it will increase the global route-table entries, plus there will be IRR & RPKI “hijack gaps” to contend with at my end. 2. If the answer to the above question is definitely “yes”, please point me to the Best-Practice in doing the “manual BGP load-sharing (on Cisco)”. Right now, all I have is: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13762-40.html#anc52 Thanks in advance for all the pointers and help given (off mailing-list is also welcome). Best Regards, Pirawat.
Current thread:
- Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) Pirawat WATANAPONGSE via NANOG (Oct 18)
- Re: [External] Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) Hunter Fuller via NANOG (Oct 18)
- Re: Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) William Herrin (Oct 18)
- RE: Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) Kevin Burke (Oct 19)
- Re: Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) Jay Hennigan (Oct 19)
- Re: Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams) Douglas Fischer (Oct 19)