On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 01:26:07 AM Keegan Holley wrote: > Is it always necessary to take in a full table? Why or > why not? In light of the Saudi Telekom fiasco I'm > curious what others thing. This question is > understandably subjective. We have datacenters with no > more than three upstreams. We would obviously have to > have a few copies of the table for customers that want > to receive it from us, but I'm curious if it is still > necessary to have a full table advertised from every > peering. Several ISP's will allow you to filter > everything longer than say /20 and then receive a > default. Just curious what others think and if anyone > is doing this.
Well, if you're connected to a single provider, you tend to have less use for a full table. 0/0 or ::/0 will do just fine. If you're multi-homed and need to get full use of those links, while taking a full feed isn't absolutely necessary, it does help. Folks have gotten by with default, or default + partial, or even eBGP Multi-Hop + Loopback peering if multi-homed to the same ISP. If your customers want a full table from you (and you're multi-homed), then a full table likely makes sense. If you want to implement very fine control of your routing and traffic flow, and perhaps, offer that capability to your customers through BGP communities, a full table may make sense. If you're modeling the routing table for research, traffic engineering studies or some such work, a full table may make sense. If you're suffering from old hardware that you don't have the cash to upgrade as you run out of FIB slots, having a full table is probably the least of your problems, and you may consider just default, partial routes, or default + a "skinny" full table. As always, it depends, and YMMV :-). Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
