nanog mailing list archives
Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent
From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:28:43 -0800
On 3/2/17 3:42 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Yes. Most providers can send you just their customer routes. If they send you full routes you want to discriminate customer vs peer routes. This is typically done with communities and is worthwhile as most people have capacity on customer links but via peer it may not always be the case. As is usual YMMV
It's relatively straight-forward to take a full table feed and accept into your fib only the routes you want from that table. I presented on variant of that based on my need for partial fib peering switches; but other reasons for doing so exist, e.g. defailt + te-overrides, prefix filters weighted by per prefix utilization and so on. In general I'd get the full table and the default if you intend to take the default but need recourse to over-rides (for example if your fib won't hold full table is an element of the design). if the Rib won't hold three full tables well that's a different sort of problem, and this may be the wrong router platform. joel
Jared MauchOn Mar 2, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Aaron Gould <aaron1 () gvtc com> wrote: Yes, thanks, I am going to do that. But, is there a middle ground between being default only and full routes ? Like is it advantageous for me to ask for partial routes (like their routes and direct peers and default route) ? This way I don't have millions of routes but I guess only a few hundred thousand or less? Let me know please. -Aaron
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent, (continued)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Niels Bakker (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Howard Leadmon (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Niels Bakker (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Nick Hilliard (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Niels Bakker (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Job Snijders (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Jeremy Austin (Mar 03)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Patrick W. Gilmore (Mar 04)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Jared Mauch (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent joel jaeggli (Mar 07)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Chuck Anderson (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Hunter Fuller (Mar 02)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Baldur Norddahl (Mar 04)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Dennis Bohn (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Theodore Baschak (Mar 02)
- Re: google ipv6 routes via cogent Christopher Morrow (Mar 02)