nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 16:13:36 +0200
On 31/May/15 14:09, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
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?
Since you can't take a full feed from either upstream, partial routes will mean taking your upstream's own routes + their directly-connected customers + default. You may make it more flexible by asking for their peering routes also, but if these are large global transit providers, that could be the full BGP table anyway (or 90% of it). Mark.
Current thread:
- BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 30)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Joseph Jackson (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Faisal Imtiaz (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Mark Tinka (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Faisal Imtiaz (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Faisal Imtiaz (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Maqbool Hashim (May 31)
- RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Joseph Jackson (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? William Herrin (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Michael (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Baldur Norddahl (May 31)
- Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? Jason Canady (May 31)