On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Aarno Aukia wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 13:54, Evgeny Yurchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't bothered - we get full feeds, so all routes are more specific than the default route.
That is good but what is the point to keep all feeds if you are connected to only two ISP manly for redundancy purposes? Evgeny
There is none, you get away with two default routes from your ISPs if you just want failover. But for the same effort (and some cheap RAM) you can have the full table and do some traffic engineering if you want to.
There's generally three options when choosing what kind of feed to receive from an upstream -- full feeds, partial customer-only routes, or default routes only. With full feeds, you'll have full redundancy for outbound traffic also and will be able to (to an extent) detect routing problems further up the path, i.e. in connectivity from ISP A to ISP C, upstream. It will also help protect against failures where layer 2 and 3 is up on the circuit but there are problems with your network provider's routing.
Full routes are very important for redundancy but require a considerable amount of memory in router land, which is where partial routes (so you at least know which networks the ISP has) and default-only routes come in.
-- William R. Lorenz --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
