nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual Homed BGP
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 23:32:27 +0100
Full tables will not make much noticeable difference if you are not peering. However you want to make sure both links get used. It can be a 90%/10% split but 100%/0% is bad because then you may discover that the alternate path is actually broken the moment the primary fail. If you choose only default then you need to think about that. If you join any peering exchanges, full tables will be mandatory. Some parties 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. Regards Baldur fre. 24. jan. 2020 17.41 skrev Brian <brian.bsi () gmail com>:
Hello all. I am having a hard time trying to articulate why a Dual Home ISP should have full tables. My understanding has always been that full tables when dual homed allow much more control. Especially in helping to prevent Async routes. Am I crazy?
Current thread:
- Dual Homed BGP Brian (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Mel Beckman (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Ben Cannon (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Cummings, Chris (Jan 24)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Ben Cannon (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)
- Re: Dual Homed BGP Mel Beckman (Jan 24)