BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Sun May 31 13:01:20 UTC 2015

Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or is the service provider charging extra for the full table.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net 

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqbool at madbull.info>
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal at snappytelecom.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:10:51 AM
> Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a
> full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:faisal at snappytelecom.net]
> Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
> To: Maqbool Hashim
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of
> best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full
> routes.
> 
> Or putting it  another way.... Taking full routes offers the most
> flexibility, anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise)
> to overcome some existing resource limitations...
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support at Snappytelecom.net
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Maqbool Hashim" <maqbool at madbull.info>
> > To: nanog at nanog.org
> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM
> > 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=rj
> > a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fna
> > nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&u
> > sg=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
> > 
> > 
> 