<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">The inbound traffic will be determined by how the Tier 1’s decide to route, as you are observing they will pick either you
<b><i><u>or</u></i></b> 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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best of luck!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kevin Burke<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">802-540-0979<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Burlington Telecom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">200 Church St, Burlington, VT<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> NANOG <nanog-bounces+kburke=burlingtontelecom.com@nanog.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Pirawat WATANAPONGSE via NANOG<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 19, 2022 2:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> nanog@nanog.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Newbies Question: Do I really need to sacrifice Prefix-aggregation to do BGP Load-sharing? (the case of Multi-homed + Multi-routers + Multi-upstreams)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="10" style="width:7.5pt;border:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:none;background:#F00000;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
</td>
<td style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;background:#FFD11C;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">WARNING!! This message originated from an
<strong><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">External Source</span></strong>. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Guru(s),<br>
<br>
<br>
My apologies if these questions have already been asked; <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">in that case, please kindly point me to the answer(s).<br>
<br>
I hope the following information sufficiently describes my current "context":<br>
- Single customer: ourselves<br>
- One big IPv4 block + one big IPv6 block<br>
- Native Dual-Stack, Non-tunneling<br>
- Non-transit (actually, a “multi-homed Stub”)<br>
- “All-green” IRR & RPKI registered (based on IRRexplorer report)<br>
- Fully-aggregated route announcement (based on CIDR report)<br>
- Two (Cisco) gateway routers on our side<br>
- Two upstreams (See the following lines), fully cross-connected to our gateways<br>
- One (pure) commercial ISP<br>
- One academic consortium ISP (who actually uses the above-mentioned commercial ISP as one of its upstreams as well)<br>
<br>
My current “situation”:<br>
- All inbounds “flock” in through the commercial ISP, overflowing the bandwidth;<br>
since (my guess) the academic ISP also uses that commercial ISP as its upstream, there is no way for its path to be shorter.<br>
<br>
Questions:<br>
1. Do I really have to “de-aggregate” the address blocks, so I can do the “manual BGP load-sharing”?<br>
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.<br>
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)”.<br>
Right now, all I have is:<br>
<a href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13762-40.html#anc52">https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13762-40.html#anc52</a><br>
<br>
Thanks in advance for all the pointers and help given (off mailing-list is also welcome).<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Pirawat.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>