Failover how much complexity will it add?

adel at adel at
Sun Nov 8 22:13:44 UTC 2009

I think partial routes makes perfect sense, makes sense that traffic for customers who are connected to each of my upstreams should go out of
the correct BGP link as long as they are up!  Now I need to start thinking of BGP router choices, sure I have a plethora of choices :-(

On Sun  10:01 PM , Seth Mattinen <sethm at> wrote:

> adel at wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Ok thanks for clearing that up. I'm getting some good feedback on
> applying for PI and ASN through Ripe LIRs over on the UKNOF so I think I
> have a handle on this.
> > With regards to BGP and using separate BGP routers. I am announcing my
> PI space to my upstreams, but I don't need to carry a full Internet
> routing table, correct?
> > So I can get away with some "lightweight" BGP routers not being an ISP
> if that makes sense?
> > 
> Most will give you three choices: full routes, partial routes (internal,
> their customers) with default, and default only. If you can't swing full
> routes then I would go for partial routes as it will at least send
> traffic for each ISP and their customers directly to them rather than
> randomly over the other link. It all depends on what you're going to use
> as your BGP speaking platform.
> ~Seth

More information about the NANOG mailing list