BGP Multihoming Partial vs. Full Routes
jared at puck.nether.net
Tue Jun 15 22:47:17 CDT 2010
Most providers will give you just their on net prefixes. This is useful if multihomed but you do not really need full tables.
Then you can default or similar for the rest of the net.
On Jun 14, 2010, at 11:30 AM, James Smallacombe <up at 3.am> wrote:
> 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 at 3.am http://3.am
More information about the NANOG