nanog mailing list archives
BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes
From: James Smallacombe <up () 3 am>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:30:17 -0400 (EDT)
I know this topic must have been covered before, but I can find no search tool for the NANOG archives. I did google and reference Halabi's book as well as Avi's howto, but I still don't feel I fully understand the pros and cons of Full vs. Partial routes in a dual/multihomed network.
Cisco's position these days seems to be "you don't need to carry full views unless you like tinkering with optimizig paths and such."
Tinkering isn't the issue. Full reachability to servers on this network from EVERYone, including both upstreams' customers, regardless of the status of each upstream connection is. Ditto in the event that one upstream has some kind of core or regional router meltdown, which I've seen more than once. I see conflicting advice as to whether partial routes will suffice for this.
Helpful links and/or synopsese appreciated. James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up () 3 am http://3.am =========================================================================
Current thread:
- BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes James Smallacombe (Jun 14)
- Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes Fred Baker (Jun 14)
- Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes Anton Kapela (Jun 15)
- Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes Jared Mauch (Jun 15)
- Re: BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes Fred Baker (Jun 14)