Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams)
kburke at burlingtontelecom.com
Wed Oct 19 18:06:48 UTC 2022
The inbound traffic will be determined by how the Tier 1’s decide to route, as you are observing they will pick either you or your other upstream. Traffic engineering as the Tier 3 carrier you have described has this kind of unexpected traffic routing. As you have obviously already tried common BGP traffic engineering tool of AS Padding your left with next worst option.
Best of luck!
200 Church St, Burlington, VT
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kburke=burlingtontelecom.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Pirawat WATANAPONGSE via NANOG
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:28 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams)
WARNING!! This message originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
My apologies if these questions have already been asked;
in that case, please kindly point me to the answer(s).
I hope the following information sufficiently describes my current "context":
- Single customer: ourselves
- One big IPv4 block + one big IPv6 block
- Native Dual-Stack, Non-tunneling
- Non-transit (actually, a “multi-homed Stub”)
- “All-green” IRR & RPKI registered (based on IRRexplorer report)
- Fully-aggregated route announcement (based on CIDR report)
- Two (Cisco) gateway routers on our side
- Two upstreams (See the following lines), fully cross-connected to our gateways
- One (pure) commercial ISP
- One academic consortium ISP (who actually uses the above-mentioned commercial ISP as one of its upstreams as well)
My current “situation”:
- All inbounds “flock” in through the commercial ISP, overflowing the bandwidth;
since (my guess) the academic ISP also uses that commercial ISP as its upstream, there is no way for its path to be shorter.
1. Do I really have to “de-aggregate” the address blocks, so I can do the “manual BGP load-sharing”?
I hate to do it because it will increase the global route-table entries, plus there will be IRR & RPKI “hijack gaps” to contend with at my end.
2. If the answer to the above question is definitely “yes”, please point me to the Best-Practice in doing the “manual BGP load-sharing (on Cisco)”.
Right now, all I have is:
Thanks in advance for all the pointers and help given (off mailing-list is also welcome).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG