Hi, Full Routes : That's for your router to maintain anyAS-to-anyAS routing info . If you recv full routes from your ISP then it's more of a disadvantage / overhead . That's so because you'll have to have loads of RAM and CPU power in your ROUTER connecting to the ISP to maintain those routing tables.
And there's this problem of instability in another AS ( with which you'd be least bothered ) causing route flaps and interrupts on your BGP router . This issue can be addressed by route summarization and dampening to a good extent . Partial routes : This is typically the case when you are configured to receive only the routes of customers' AS that you'd like to reach and a default route to reach the other AS through your ISP . This reduces the size of your routing table and causes less damage to your BGP router as well as compared to the router receiving full routes . No routes : This is typically like ( if I'm permitted to call !! ) a Totally Stubby Area in the case of OSPF . Your BGP router doesn't recv anything but a default route from your ISP and you don't have much knowledge about any other route. Hope this helps..!! Regards, Srivathsan A -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BGP routes [7:71442] Dear all What is the benefits of receiving the following BGP routes 1. Full routes 2. Partial routes 3. No routes Regards, kws Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71509&t=71442 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
