nanog mailing list archives

RE: Dual Homed BGP for failover


From: Brandon Kim <brandon.kim () brandontek com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:57:19 -0500


Someone should advise him that if he wants to take in a full BGP routing table
that he makes sure his router can handle it! I would hate for him to open the floodgates
and his production router shuts down. LOL....






Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:12:18 -0600
From: jbates () brightok net
To: bill () herrin us
Subject: Re: Dual Homed BGP for failover
CC: ayousuf0079 () gmail com; nanog () nanog org



On 1/18/2011 1:00 PM, William Herrin wrote:
IMO, that would be a mistake. Taking significantly less than a full
table severely limits your options for balancing traffic between the
links.


It should also be noted that taking a full table, doesn't mean you have 
to use the full table. Apply filters to smaller routes or long ASPATHs 
that you don't want, and then assign preferences, communities, prepends, 
etc as necessary for the routes you actually accept.

This means your sync time is longer and you'll have more updates, but it 
will still keep the local routing table much lower.


Jack

                                          

Current thread: