RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

[Maqbool Hashim <maqbool () madbull info>]

Hi,

No the current devices can't support full table (well not from both providers) we would need to upgrade.  Really in 
terms of cost saving just want to make sure to not get charged overages because we utilise too much of one link and not 
enough of another.  I don't think the shortest AS path will be of that much concern or noticeable for most destinations.

We do however have a set of remote sites which communicate over the Internet to our central sites where the transit 
providers are.  Just general Internet at the remote sites- but traffic from remote sites to central sites would be the 
most important.

I am just not sure of exactly how to define the "partial" routing table criteria to our two providers.  Should we just 
take routes for each provider and their peers and a default from both?

The main reason for not taking a full routing table is the cost/inconvenience of upgrading existing hardware.

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjackson () aninetworks net] 
Sent: 31 May 2015 12:41
To: Maqbool Hashim; nanog () nanog org
Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Can your devices support a full table?  

You can load balance  outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table.   THo that won't be the shortest AS path.  
In regards to cost savings how were you thinking of doing so?  Does one provider charge more?  Just use the cheaper 
provider.

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Maqbool Hashim
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Hi,


We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load balance in inbound and outbound traffic 
thereby using our capacity as efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to take a 
full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this document from NANOG presentations:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU


The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing tables. However I was seeking some clarity as 
there are other documents which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depends on our 
criteria and requirements for load balancing:


- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation

- Be nice to make some cost savings


We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, 
but we want to try and balance utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rough" approach 
for us would be:


- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers

- Take defaults from both and pref one


Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most welcome!


Many Thanks