Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-02 Thread Mike Hammett
I wouldn't call that product marketing. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Scott Weeks"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 6:00:38 PM 
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? 



but I don't do email like that 
why is it hard to read? 
it's really hard to read email this way. 
because it's out of order 
umm, ok. I fixed it for you 


- 
You've obviously never been hounded by sales folks scraping 
this list that believe they should never give up. It's painful 
to say the least. If every "Product Evangelist" were allowed 
to do this, NANOG would be a nightmare. 

 

To others out there thinking of doing the same, again I say 
Please read #5 https://www.nanog.org/list 
-- 


- na...@ics-il.net wrote: -- 
From: Mike Hammett  

Probably not NANOG, but I have way more traffic on many other 
lists over the last 12+ years. I'm no stranger to over-zealous 
sales guys. I've started blocking the ones that call my support 
line and talking to the call center, despite the warning that 
support is only for my customers. 
-- 



So, why-oh-why encourage them here? I'm done with this 
non-thread and fixing out of order postings. Way too much 
work for me, but I'm sure it's easier for you. 

No matter what either of us thinks NANOG's AUP specifically 
states "Product marketing is prohibited." and "Using list 
as source for private marketing initiatives is prohibited." 

[FIN, ACK, Seq=2many, Len=0] 

scott 



Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-02 Thread Scott Weeks


but I don't do email like that
why is it hard to read?
it's really hard to read email this way.
because it's out of order
umm, ok.  I fixed it for you


-
You've obviously never been hounded by sales folks scraping 
this list that believe they should never give up. It's painful 
to say the least. If every "Product Evangelist" were allowed 
to do this, NANOG would be a nightmare. 



To others out there thinking of doing the same, again I say 
Please read #5 https://www.nanog.org/list 
--


- na...@ics-il.net wrote: --
From: Mike Hammett 

Probably not NANOG, but I have way more traffic on many other 
lists over the last 12+ years. I'm no stranger to over-zealous 
sales guys. I've started blocking the ones that call my support 
line and talking to the call center, despite the warning that 
support is only for my customers. 
--



So, why-oh-why encourage them here?  I'm done with this 
non-thread and fixing out of order postings.  Way too much 
work for me, but I'm sure it's easier for you.

No matter what either of us thinks NANOG's AUP specifically
states "Product marketing is prohibited." and "Using list 
as source for private marketing initiatives is prohibited."

[FIN, ACK, Seq=2many, Len=0]

scott


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Mike Hammett
Probably not NANOG, but I have way more traffic on many other lists over the 
last 12+ years. I'm no stranger to over-zealous sales guys. I've started 
blocking the ones that call my support line and talking to the call center, 
despite the warning that support is only for my customers. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Scott Weeks"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 8:44:41 PM 
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? 



- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Weeks"  

--- n...@border6.com wrote: 
From: Pawel Rybczyk  

platform where we included new feature called 

That might be interesting for you. 
--- 

This might be interesting for you. 

https://www.nanog.org/list 

Please read #5 before going further. 


Product Evangelist 
-- 

BLECH! I need a shower. 
--- 

--- na...@ics-il.net wrote: 
From: Mike Hammett  

Seems like a perfectly good post to me. Someone made an inquiry as to how to 
solve a particular problem There were multiple solutions presented. Pawel 
posted relevant, on-topic information regarding how his product could solve the 
problem in a unique way. 

No harm, no foul. 
-- 


You've obviously never been hounded by sales folks scraping 
this list that believe they should never give up. It's painful 
to say the least. If every "Product Evangelist" were allowed 
to do this, NANOG would be a nightmare. 

The only answer many times is to be sure you don't buy from 
"Product Evanglists" that post their crap on NANOG. Hit them 
where it hurts (no sales because they did that) and they stop. 
Quickly. 

To others out there thinking of doing the same, again I say 
Please read #5 https://www.nanog.org/list 

scott 





Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Scott Weeks


- Original Message -
From: "Scott Weeks"  

--- n...@border6.com wrote: 
From: Pawel Rybczyk  

platform where we included new feature called 

That might be interesting for you. 
--- 

This might be interesting for you. 

https://www.nanog.org/list 

Please read #5 before going further. 


Product Evangelist 
-- 

BLECH! I need a shower. 
---

--- na...@ics-il.net wrote:
From: Mike Hammett 

Seems like a perfectly good post to me. Someone made an inquiry as to how to 
solve a particular problem There were multiple solutions presented. Pawel 
posted relevant, on-topic information regarding how his product could solve the 
problem in a unique way. 

No harm, no foul. 
--


You've obviously never been hounded by sales folks scraping 
this list that believe they should never give up.  It's painful 
to say the least.  If every "Product Evangelist" were allowed
to do this, NANOG would be a nightmare.

The only answer many times is to be sure you don't buy from
"Product Evanglists" that post their crap on NANOG.  Hit them 
where it hurts (no sales because they did that) and they stop.  
Quickly.

To others out there thinking of doing the same, again I say
Please read #5  https://www.nanog.org/list 

scott




Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
On Jun 01, 2015, at 17:46 , William Herrin  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl
>  wrote:
>> This is only a problem if you use so called tier 1 transit providers.
>> 
>> The smaller fish in the pond have multiple transits themselves and will
>> there by always have an alternative route available.
> 
> Hi Baldur,
> 
> Cogent is not a tier 1 (not a "transit-free") provider last I heard.
> Maybe that's changed, but they weren't back when they had the
> week-long peering dispute with Sprint.

Cogent has no transit. Hasn’t for years.

During the peering outage, the only “transit” they had was to a single SFI 
network.

I make no comments about Cogent’s reliability or peering or etc.

— 
TTFN,
patrick


> Their business plan included
> preventing their routes from reaching Sprint via paid transit. If you
> were a customer of either carrier that week and you weren't multihomed
> with full routes, you were not a happy camper.
> 
> "Always" is such a strong. Yes, you're at higher risk if all your
> upstreams are "transit-free" but using only backbone providers who
> have paid upstream transit in their mix is no panacea.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 



Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread William Herrin
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> This is only a problem if you use so called tier 1 transit providers.
>
> The smaller fish in the pond have multiple transits themselves and will
> there by always have an alternative route available.

Hi Baldur,

Cogent is not a tier 1 (not a "transit-free") provider last I heard.
Maybe that's changed, but they weren't back when they had the
week-long peering dispute with Sprint. Their business plan included
preventing their routes from reaching Sprint via paid transit. If you
were a customer of either carrier that week and you weren't multihomed
with full routes, you were not a happy camper.

"Always" is such a strong. Yes, you're at higher risk if all your
upstreams are "transit-free" but using only backbone providers who
have paid upstream transit in their mix is no panacea.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread William Herrin
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:
> After studying failure modes and attempting to optimize BGP using partial
> routing tables, I am of the opinion that BGP with a full routing table to
> directly connected devices is by far the best way to gain the availability
> benefits of BGP. Many attempts to cost save through multi-hop BGP or traffic
> engineering end up breaking down when a fault occurs. Some faults, like link
> state, are easy to detect and work around. Other faults, like where a peer
> is up, but has no outside connectivity, are harder to detect if you're
> taking anything less than full routes.

Hi Blake,

Yes, it's better to take full routes. But taking a default from two
ISPs still has a reliability advantage over using a single ISP. And of
course if you have two connections to the same ISP there's limited in
taking full routes.

Between default routes and full routes there is a range of options
with increasing reliability. For example, years ago I had routers with
a 256k TCAM as the BGP table approached 256k. The organization I
worked for was US-centric. We needed world connectivity, but high
reliability to Asia or Europe was not essential. And a large cash
expenditure that year would have been bad. By slaving the APNIC /8's
to a single accepted BGP route, backed by static routes for those /8's
should the master BGP route fail, I maintained full connectivity while
suppressing the route count to what the hardware could handle. And of
course maintained maximum reliability to the destination region I most
cared about.

Moral of the story: if you can afford it, always take full routes. If
you can't afford it, try to. If you really can't afford it, there's
some trickery that can last you a year or two until you can afford it,
but make sure new hardware makes it into your budget.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Baldur Norddahl
This is only a problem if you use so called tier 1 transit providers.

The smaller fish in the pond have multiple transits themselves and will
there by always have an alternative route available.

Regards

Baldur
Den 01/06/2015 22.32 skrev "William Herrin" :

> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:
> > A gateway of last resort, also called a backup default route, will take
> care
> > of partitions
>
> No, Blake, it won't. A partition means one of your ISPs has no route
> to the destination. Route the packet to that ISP via a default route
> and it gets sent to /dev/null. More, during a partition you don't get
> to pick which of your ISPs lack the route.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Blake Hudson

William Herrin wrote on 6/1/2015 3:28 PM:

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:

A gateway of last resort, also called a backup default route, will take care
of partitions

No, Blake, it won't. A partition means one of your ISPs has no route
to the destination. Route the packet to that ISP via a default route
and it gets sent to /dev/null. More, during a partition you don't get
to pick which of your ISPs lack the route.

Regards,
Bill Herrin
Thanks. I see what you mean. I was coming from the vantage point of 
taking full routes and assuming that the prefix information existed and 
simply hadn't filtered down to the op's equipment yet. It was there, 
just upstream a hop or two. This could be due to a newly advertised 
route, path changes, or initial BGP convergence. In this case, a backup 
route provides the necessary bridge while BGP converges. I see what you 
mean about one ISP having a route and the other not; Taking full routes 
resolves any question about the best (only) path.


After studying failure modes and attempting to optimize BGP using 
partial routing tables, I am of the opinion that BGP with a full routing 
table to directly connected devices is by far the best way to gain the 
availability benefits of BGP. Many attempts to cost save through 
multi-hop BGP or traffic engineering end up breaking down when a fault 
occurs. Some faults, like link state, are easy to detect and work 
around. Other faults, like where a peer is up, but has no outside 
connectivity, are harder to detect if you're taking anything less than 
full routes.


--Blake


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread William Herrin
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Blake Hudson  wrote:
> A gateway of last resort, also called a backup default route, will take care
> of partitions

No, Blake, it won't. A partition means one of your ISPs has no route
to the destination. Route the packet to that ISP via a default route
and it gets sent to /dev/null. More, during a partition you don't get
to pick which of your ISPs lack the route.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Jeremy Malli
You could have your transit providers send you a default route in the 
BGP session instead of nailing it up using a static.  That way if the 
interface does not physically go down but the BGP session does, the 
default route will be pulled when the BGP session dies.


Also, you could go with a less expensive router that will handle full 
routes such as the Mikrotik CCR's ( 
http://routerboard.com/CCR1036-8G-2SplusEM ).  Get one for each of your 
transit providers.  People have varying experiences with Mikrotik 
however for basic use they seem to work well.


Jeremy Malli
jer...@vcn.com

On 6/1/2015 11:40 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:

A gateway of last resort, also called a backup default route, will take
care of partitions and is, in my opinion, a good idea if you are not
providing transit to others. It's a requirement if you're not taking
full routes, but even if you do take full routes the management cost is
practically nill.

The practical problem with with using static routes (or a locally
generated default route only BGP feed) for egress route selection is
when your upstream providers perform maintenance or have an outages.
When this occurs, you'll likely be impacted during the duration of the
event. This may be 5 minutes, it may be hours. What are the track
records for your upstream ISPs? Is having two ISPs doubling your
downtime, and is this the desired outcome? If you can't send traffic out
to half of the internet for an hour is that OK? At midnight? At noon?

--Blake

Maqbool Hashim wrote on 6/1/2015 11:28 AM:

First off thanks to everyone that responded to my original post, very
instructive and informational replies along with a good view of
different perspectives.

Baldur, you pointed out that for ingress it's exactly the same to take
partials, we are only affected on outbound and we can achieve a large
part of the redundancy for outbound also.  Someone else pointed out
that partitions of the Internet view from our two providers are often
lasting minutes rather than hours.  Given this input I really lean
towards Baldur's statement of we can probably spend the money better
elsewhere.

One point I will try and make internally is "Do we care about all of
the Internet all of the time?", note we are not an ISP.  Basically if
some part of the Internet in is unreachable for a "short" period will
we even notice it?  Always if it is one of our remote sites, but of
course we can mitigate that by making those part of the partials that
we take from both of our providers.

By taking full routes I can only see us protecting the view of the
whole Internet our internal web browsing clients, after all if a
partition to a "busy" part of the Internet happens we will notice it
straight away (Google etc.), but if it is someone's iTunes server on
the end of some small DSL provider- do we care?

One thing I would rather not do which is manage static routes on the
BGP routers seems counter intuitive on the face of it.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Baldur Norddahl

Sent: 01 June 2015 16:49
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

On 1 June 2015 at 15:29, Blake Hudson  wrote:


Something to point out: Sometimes the device you connect to is up,
but has
no reachability to the rest of the world. Using static routes is..
well..
static. There are a few cases (such as the one mentioned) where a static
route can be somewhat dynamic. Another case is when the static route
next
hop does not respond to ARP requests or some machines have the
ability to
perform triggered actions on some sort of event/test. But why bother
with
BGP if you're just going to override its decisions by using static
routes?

As another commenter mentioned, using anything less than a full table
is a
compromise. If one wants the redundancy in the case of an upstream ISP
outage, take full routes. If one wants the traffic engineering
flexibility,
take full routes and use a BGP knob like route maps to modify existing
prefixes rather than make up your own. A default route of last resort is
fine; Overriding BGP through static routes degrades the utility of BGP.


Thanks for pointing this out. However I would like to argue whether
this is
a big drawback or not.

If the original poster had infinite money and infinite resources there
would be no question to ask. Just get the most expensive router out there
and get full tables.

So given that the money could be spent on other things, that might be
more
helpful for his company, is it good value to invest in new routers? I
believe every company and NOC teams needs to decide this for
themselves. I
do however feel this is often a rushed decision because people have an
idea
that anything less than full tables is not good enough and that you
are not
a real ISP if you do not have full tables etc.

It is true that your static routes could end up pointing at a half dead
router, that

Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Blake Hudson
A gateway of last resort, also called a backup default route, will take 
care of partitions and is, in my opinion, a good idea if you are not 
providing transit to others. It's a requirement if you're not taking 
full routes, but even if you do take full routes the management cost is 
practically nill.


The practical problem with with using static routes (or a locally 
generated default route only BGP feed) for egress route selection is 
when your upstream providers perform maintenance or have an outages. 
When this occurs, you'll likely be impacted during the duration of the 
event. This may be 5 minutes, it may be hours. What are the track 
records for your upstream ISPs? Is having two ISPs doubling your 
downtime, and is this the desired outcome? If you can't send traffic out 
to half of the internet for an hour is that OK? At midnight? At noon?


--Blake

Maqbool Hashim wrote on 6/1/2015 11:28 AM:

First off thanks to everyone that responded to my original post, very 
instructive and informational replies along with a good view of different 
perspectives.

Baldur, you pointed out that for ingress it's exactly the same to take 
partials, we are only affected on outbound and we can achieve a large part of 
the redundancy for outbound also.  Someone else pointed out that partitions of 
the Internet view from our two providers are often lasting minutes rather than 
hours.  Given this input I really lean towards Baldur's statement of we can 
probably spend the money better elsewhere.

One point I will try and make internally is "Do we care about all of the Internet all of the 
time?", note we are not an ISP.  Basically if some part of the Internet in is unreachable for 
a "short" period will we even notice it?  Always if it is one of our remote sites, but of 
course we can mitigate that by making those part of the partials that we take from both of our 
providers.

By taking full routes I can only see us protecting the view of the whole Internet our 
internal web browsing clients, after all if a partition to a "busy" part of the 
Internet happens we will notice it straight away (Google etc.), but if it is someone's 
iTunes server on the end of some small DSL provider- do we care?

One thing I would rather not do which is manage static routes on the BGP 
routers seems counter intuitive on the face of it.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Baldur Norddahl 

Sent: 01 June 2015 16:49
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

On 1 June 2015 at 15:29, Blake Hudson  wrote:


Something to point out: Sometimes the device you connect to is up, but has
no reachability to the rest of the world. Using static routes is.. well..
static. There are a few cases (such as the one mentioned) where a static
route can be somewhat dynamic. Another case is when the static route next
hop does not respond to ARP requests or some machines have the ability to
perform triggered actions on some sort of event/test. But why bother with
BGP if you're just going to override its decisions by using static routes?

As another commenter mentioned, using anything less than a full table is a
compromise. If one wants the redundancy in the case of an upstream ISP
outage, take full routes. If one wants the traffic engineering flexibility,
take full routes and use a BGP knob like route maps to modify existing
prefixes rather than make up your own. A default route of last resort is
fine; Overriding BGP through static routes degrades the utility of BGP.


Thanks for pointing this out. However I would like to argue whether this is
a big drawback or not.

If the original poster had infinite money and infinite resources there
would be no question to ask. Just get the most expensive router out there
and get full tables.

So given that the money could be spent on other things, that might be more
helpful for his company, is it good value to invest in new routers? I
believe every company and NOC teams needs to decide this for themselves. I
do however feel this is often a rushed decision because people have an idea
that anything less than full tables is not good enough and that you are not
a real ISP if you do not have full tables etc.

It is true that your static routes could end up pointing at a half dead
router, that still keeps the link up. But it is also perfectly possible for
a router to keep advertising routes, that it really can't forward traffic
to or where there are service problems so servere that it amounts to the
same (excessive packet loss etc). This is supposed to be rare for a good
quality transit provider and the remedy is the same (manually take the link
down).

We got our big routers and full tables early on. With perfect 20/20
hindsight I am not sure I would spend the money that way if I had to do it
over.

All I am saying is that you can get most of the value with partial tables.
You get 100

Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Maqbool Hashim
First off thanks to everyone that responded to my original post, very 
instructive and informational replies along with a good view of different 
perspectives.

Baldur, you pointed out that for ingress it's exactly the same to take 
partials, we are only affected on outbound and we can achieve a large part of 
the redundancy for outbound also.  Someone else pointed out that partitions of 
the Internet view from our two providers are often lasting minutes rather than 
hours.  Given this input I really lean towards Baldur's statement of we can 
probably spend the money better elsewhere.

One point I will try and make internally is "Do we care about all of the 
Internet all of the time?", note we are not an ISP.  Basically if some part of 
the Internet in is unreachable for a "short" period will we even notice it?  
Always if it is one of our remote sites, but of course we can mitigate that by 
making those part of the partials that we take from both of our providers.  

By taking full routes I can only see us protecting the view of the whole 
Internet our internal web browsing clients, after all if a partition to a 
"busy" part of the Internet happens we will notice it straight away (Google 
etc.), but if it is someone's iTunes server on the end of some small DSL 
provider- do we care?

One thing I would rather not do which is manage static routes on the BGP 
routers seems counter intuitive on the face of it.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Baldur Norddahl 

Sent: 01 June 2015 16:49
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

On 1 June 2015 at 15:29, Blake Hudson  wrote:

> Something to point out: Sometimes the device you connect to is up, but has
> no reachability to the rest of the world. Using static routes is.. well..
> static. There are a few cases (such as the one mentioned) where a static
> route can be somewhat dynamic. Another case is when the static route next
> hop does not respond to ARP requests or some machines have the ability to
> perform triggered actions on some sort of event/test. But why bother with
> BGP if you're just going to override its decisions by using static routes?
>
> As another commenter mentioned, using anything less than a full table is a
> compromise. If one wants the redundancy in the case of an upstream ISP
> outage, take full routes. If one wants the traffic engineering flexibility,
> take full routes and use a BGP knob like route maps to modify existing
> prefixes rather than make up your own. A default route of last resort is
> fine; Overriding BGP through static routes degrades the utility of BGP.
>

Thanks for pointing this out. However I would like to argue whether this is
a big drawback or not.

If the original poster had infinite money and infinite resources there
would be no question to ask. Just get the most expensive router out there
and get full tables.

So given that the money could be spent on other things, that might be more
helpful for his company, is it good value to invest in new routers? I
believe every company and NOC teams needs to decide this for themselves. I
do however feel this is often a rushed decision because people have an idea
that anything less than full tables is not good enough and that you are not
a real ISP if you do not have full tables etc.

It is true that your static routes could end up pointing at a half dead
router, that still keeps the link up. But it is also perfectly possible for
a router to keep advertising routes, that it really can't forward traffic
to or where there are service problems so servere that it amounts to the
same (excessive packet loss etc). This is supposed to be rare for a good
quality transit provider and the remedy is the same (manually take the link
down).

We got our big routers and full tables early on. With perfect 20/20
hindsight I am not sure I would spend the money that way if I had to do it
over.

All I am saying is that you can get most of the value with partial tables.
You get 100% of it with ingress traffic and you can move a very large
fraction of your egress exactly the same. Your redundancy might not be
equal, but it will not be entirely bad.

Regards,

Baldur


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Baldur Norddahl
On 1 June 2015 at 15:29, Blake Hudson  wrote:

> Something to point out: Sometimes the device you connect to is up, but has
> no reachability to the rest of the world. Using static routes is.. well..
> static. There are a few cases (such as the one mentioned) where a static
> route can be somewhat dynamic. Another case is when the static route next
> hop does not respond to ARP requests or some machines have the ability to
> perform triggered actions on some sort of event/test. But why bother with
> BGP if you're just going to override its decisions by using static routes?
>
> As another commenter mentioned, using anything less than a full table is a
> compromise. If one wants the redundancy in the case of an upstream ISP
> outage, take full routes. If one wants the traffic engineering flexibility,
> take full routes and use a BGP knob like route maps to modify existing
> prefixes rather than make up your own. A default route of last resort is
> fine; Overriding BGP through static routes degrades the utility of BGP.
>

Thanks for pointing this out. However I would like to argue whether this is
a big drawback or not.

If the original poster had infinite money and infinite resources there
would be no question to ask. Just get the most expensive router out there
and get full tables.

So given that the money could be spent on other things, that might be more
helpful for his company, is it good value to invest in new routers? I
believe every company and NOC teams needs to decide this for themselves. I
do however feel this is often a rushed decision because people have an idea
that anything less than full tables is not good enough and that you are not
a real ISP if you do not have full tables etc.

It is true that your static routes could end up pointing at a half dead
router, that still keeps the link up. But it is also perfectly possible for
a router to keep advertising routes, that it really can't forward traffic
to or where there are service problems so servere that it amounts to the
same (excessive packet loss etc). This is supposed to be rare for a good
quality transit provider and the remedy is the same (manually take the link
down).

We got our big routers and full tables early on. With perfect 20/20
hindsight I am not sure I would spend the money that way if I had to do it
over.

All I am saying is that you can get most of the value with partial tables.
You get 100% of it with ingress traffic and you can move a very large
fraction of your egress exactly the same. Your redundancy might not be
equal, but it will not be entirely bad.

Regards,

Baldur


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Mike Hammett
Seems like a perfectly good post to me. Someone made an inquiry as to how to 
solve a particular problem There were multiple solutions presented. Pawel 
posted relevant, on-topic information regarding how his product could solve the 
problem in a unique way. 

No harm, no foul. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Scott Weeks"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 3:36:46 AM 
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial? 



--- n...@border6.com wrote: 
From: Pawel Rybczyk  

platform where we included new feature called 

That might be interesting for you. 
--- 


This might be interesting for you. 

https://www.nanog.org/list 

Please read #5 before going further. 





Product Evangelist 
-- 

BLECH! I need a shower. 


scott 



Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Blake Hudson

Baldur Norddahl wrote on 5/31/2015 1:13 PM:

Remember this:

1) for inbound traffic there will be no difference at all.

2) routers will ignore a static route if the link is down. If you can get
BFD from the providers then even better.

So you can emulate 99% of what you get with full routes by loading in
static routes. A simple example would be adding a 0.0.0.0/1 route to one
provider and 128.0.0.0/1 route to the other and get approximately 50% load
sharing.

You will still get redundancy as the route will ignored if the link is down
and traffic will follow the default route to the other transit provider.



Something to point out: Sometimes the device you connect to is up, but 
has no reachability to the rest of the world. Using static routes is.. 
well.. static. There are a few cases (such as the one mentioned) where a 
static route can be somewhat dynamic. Another case is when the static 
route next hop does not respond to ARP requests or some machines have 
the ability to perform triggered actions on some sort of event/test. But 
why bother with BGP if you're just going to override its decisions by 
using static routes?


As another commenter mentioned, using anything less than a full table is 
a compromise. If one wants the redundancy in the case of an upstream ISP 
outage, take full routes. If one wants the traffic engineering 
flexibility, take full routes and use a BGP knob like route maps to 
modify existing prefixes rather than make up your own. A default route 
of last resort is fine; Overriding BGP through static routes degrades 
the utility of BGP.


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-06-01 Thread Scott Weeks


--- n...@border6.com wrote:
From: Pawel Rybczyk 

platform where we included new feature called

That might be interesting for you.
---


This might be interesting for you.  

https://www.nanog.org/list

Please read #5 before going further.





Product Evangelist
--

BLECH!  I need a shower.


scott


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Pawel Rybczyk
Hi,

We've have recently published new version of our BGP routing
optimization platform where we included new feature called: vRouter.
That might be interesting for you.

The vRouter provides route summarization support to BGP routers whose
TCAM is unable to hold the entire actual feed of Internet prefixes. In
this case BGP edge routers work in 'Selective Route Download' mode and
transmit the full routing table to the vRouter. The NSI vRouter selects
a number of prefixes to which the most data is routed and advertises the
necessary routes back to the edge router. Thereby the edge router does
not have to support the entire routing table, but only the routes it
needs to reach.

Please contact me off-list if you need more details.

Regards,
Pawel Rybczyk
Product Evangelist
Border 6

On 05/31/2015 10:46 PM, Jason Canady wrote:
> If your traffic is small, you could setup a VyOS box.  You can still get
> redundancy by having two switches, each one connected to an upstream
> provider receiving a default route.  Then hookup your VyOS router to
> each switch and receive full routes to that.  You will need a /29 subnet
> from your providers to pull this off.  If your VyOS box goes down for
> whatever reason, you will failover to using one or the other switch. 
> Announce your prefixes using the BGP session on each switch so that your
> inbound traffic doesn't hit the VyOS box.
> 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Jason Canady
If your traffic is small, you could setup a VyOS box.  You can still get 
redundancy by having two switches, each one connected to an upstream 
provider receiving a default route.  Then hookup your VyOS router to 
each switch and receive full routes to that.  You will need a /29 subnet 
from your providers to pull this off.  If your VyOS box goes down for 
whatever reason, you will failover to using one or the other switch.  
Announce your prefixes using the BGP session on each switch so that your 
inbound traffic doesn't hit the VyOS box.


--

Jason Canady
Unlimited Net, LLC
Responsive, Reliable, Secure

www.unlimitednet.us
ja...@unlimitednet.us
twitter: @unlimitednet

On 5/29/15 4:36 AM, Maqbool Hashim wrote:

Hi,


We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load 
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as 
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to 
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this document 
from NANOG presentations:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU


The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing tables. However 
I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents which suggest taking a full 
routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depends on our criteria and 
requirements for load balancing:


- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation

- Be nice to make some cost savings


We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our links is 
sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance utilisation to remain 
within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rough" approach for us would 
be:


- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers

- Take defaults from both and pref one


Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most welcome!


Many Thanks





Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Baldur Norddahl
Remember this:

1) for inbound traffic there will be no difference at all.

2) routers will ignore a static route if the link is down. If you can get
BFD from the providers then even better.

So you can emulate 99% of what you get with full routes by loading in
static routes. A simple example would be adding a 0.0.0.0/1 route to one
provider and 128.0.0.0/1 route to the other and get approximately 50% load
sharing.

You will still get redundancy as the route will ignored if the link is down
and traffic will follow the default route to the other transit provider.

If you find an offline source for IP ranges originated by each provider and
their peers, you can add routes for that to improve routing. Taking in
partial routes is also good if this provides you with a route count that
your routers can handle.

BGP shortest AS length routing is really not very good to begin with. If
you want the best routes, you need to analyse your traffic, sort by volume
or other metric and figure out which way is best for your top x AS
destinations.  It may be more work, but you will get better routing
compared to investing in expensive routers to take in full routes and then
hope BGP magic takes cares for the rest automatically.

Regards,

Baldur


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Michael
Well, we´re using 2x Cisco 3560X switches for simple inbound/outbound 
load sharing with our provider for years 
(http://wiki.nil.com/EBGP_load_sharing). There´s no need for us going 
full routes...

Regards,
Michael



Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread William Herrin
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Maqbool Hashim  wrote:
> We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load 
> balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as 
> efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us 
> to take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this 
> document from NANOG presentations:

Hello,

Without a full table you are not protected from partitions. Partitions
are when a particular destination is reachable via one of your ISPs
but not via the other. Without receiving the route, you have no idea
which ISP can reach it.

Partitions happen fairly often but rarely last long (on the order of
minutes). The worst cases tend to be when two backbones get into a
peering dispute. Those have been known to last a week or more. See:
Cogent v. everybody else.

Think of it this way: a partial table is like an unsigned SSL
certificate. Better than static routes but not fully protected.

Regards,
Bill Herrin





-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Mark Tinka


On 31/May/15 14:09, Maqbool Hashim wrote:
>
> I am just not sure of exactly how to define the "partial" routing table 
> criteria to our two providers.  Should we just take routes for each provider 
> and their peers and a default from both?

Since you can't take a full feed from either upstream, partial routes
will mean taking your upstream's own routes + their directly-connected
customers + default.

You may make it more flexible by asking for their peering routes also,
but if these are large global transit providers, that could be the full
BGP table anyway (or 90% of it).

Mark.


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
BGP traffic engineering is kind of like Soda Prefer. that folks have Some 
like Pepsi, some Like Coke, some don't care as long as it is Cold and fizzy.

Depending on who your two providers are, you may be happy with just taking full 
routes, and doing some creative routing (i.e. setting up static routes for 
outbound for specific prefixes, not the most elegant solution).

Remember, BGP allows for Asymmetric routing, as such with default routes, you 
will have traffic coming in from both providers (by default) and traffic going 
out via one of them (by default).

At the end of the day you are most likely to make a decision based on what is 
your cost for having a more powerful router, and how much 'creative routing' 
you want to / need to do.
(My Personal opinion, is that it is a 50/50 decision to upgrade hardware just 
to take full routing tables.. however if there are other reasons or needs, that 
can sway the decision in one direction or the other).

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom

- Original Message -
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> To: "Joseph Jackson" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:09:02 AM
> Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> No the current devices can't support full table (well not from both
> providers) we would need to upgrade.  Really in terms of cost saving just
> want to make sure to not get charged overages because we utilise too much of
> one link and not enough of another.  I don't think the shortest AS path will
> be of that much concern or noticeable for most destinations.
> 
> We do however have a set of remote sites which communicate over the Internet
> to our central sites where the transit providers are.  Just general Internet
> at the remote sites- but traffic from remote sites to central sites would be
> the most important.
> 
> I am just not sure of exactly how to define the "partial" routing table
> criteria to our two providers.  Should we just take routes for each provider
> and their peers and a default from both?
> 
> The main reason for not taking a full routing table is the cost/inconvenience
> of upgrading existing hardware.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjack...@aninetworks.net]
> Sent: 31 May 2015 12:41
> To: Maqbool Hashim; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Can your devices support a full table?
> 
> You can load balance  outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table.
> THo that won't be the shortest AS path.  In regards to cost savings how
> were you thinking of doing so?  Does one provider charge more?  Just use the
> cheaper provider.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Maqbool Hashim
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load
> balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as
> efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us
> to take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this
> document from NANOG presentations:
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
> 
> 
> The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing
> tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents
> which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it
> depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
> 
> 
> - Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
> 
> - Be nice to make some cost savings
> 
> 
> We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our
> links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance
> utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a
> "rough" approach for us would be:
> 
> 
> - Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
> 
> - Take defaults from both and pref one
> 
> 
> Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most
> welcome!
> 
> 
> Many Thanks
> 
> 


RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Maqbool Hashim
Just for the hardware and the planning required for migrating to new hardware 
human resource etc.

-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net] 
Sent: 31 May 2015 14:01
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or 
is the service provider charging extra for the full table.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:10:51 AM
> Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price 
> for a full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the 
> expenditure.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
> Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
> To: Maqbool Hashim
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take 
> advantage of best paths to different networks (outbound), then you 
> have to take full routes.
> 
> Or putting it  another way Taking full routes offers the most 
> flexibility, anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable 
> compromise) to overcome some existing resource limitations...
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM
> > Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish 
> > to load balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our 
> > capacity as efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it 
> > would be crazy for us to take a full Internet routing table from 
> > either ISP. I have read this document from NANOG presentations:
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=
> > rj 
> > a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2F
> > na 
> > nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ
> > &u sg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
> > 
> > 
> > The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full 
> > routing tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are 
> > other documents which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal.
> > I "guess" it depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
> > 
> > 
> > - Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
> > 
> > - Be nice to make some cost savings
> > 
> > 
> > We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either 
> > of our links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to 
> > try and balance utilisation to remain within our commits if 
> > possible. I am thinking a "rough" approach for us would be:
> > 
> > 
> > - Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
> > 
> > - Take defaults from both and pref one
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be 
> > most welcome!
> > 
> > 
> > Many Thanks
> > 
> > 
> 


Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
Interesting... is the cost associated with full tables just for the Hardware or 
is the service provider charging extra for the full table.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 8:10:51 AM
> Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a
> full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net]
> Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
> To: Maqbool Hashim
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of
> best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full
> routes.
> 
> Or putting it  another way Taking full routes offers the most
> flexibility, anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise)
> to overcome some existing resource limitations...
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM
> > Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to
> > load balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our
> > capacity as efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it
> > would be crazy for us to take a full Internet routing table from
> > either ISP. I have read this document from NANOG presentations:
> > 
> > 
> > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rj
> > a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fna
> > nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&u
> > sg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
> > 
> > 
> > The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full
> > routing tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other
> > documents which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal.
> > I "guess" it depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
> > 
> > 
> > - Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
> > 
> > - Be nice to make some cost savings
> > 
> > 
> > We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of
> > our links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try
> > and balance utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am
> > thinking a "rough" approach for us would be:
> > 
> > 
> > - Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
> > 
> > - Take defaults from both and pref one
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be
> > most welcome!
> > 
> > 
> > Many Thanks
> > 
> > 
> 


RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Maqbool Hashim
Thanks,

So we just need to take a decision on whether we want to pay the price for a 
full routing table, whether it gives us enough value for the expenditure.

-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net] 
Sent: 31 May 2015 13:06
To: Maqbool Hashim
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of 
best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full routes.

Or putting it  another way Taking full routes offers the most flexibility, 
anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise) to overcome some 
existing resource limitations...  

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM
> Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to 
> load balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our 
> capacity as efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it 
> would be crazy for us to take a full Internet routing table from 
> either ISP. I have read this document from NANOG presentations:
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rj
> a&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fna
> nog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&u
> sg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
> 
> 
> The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full 
> routing tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other 
> documents which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. 
> I "guess" it depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
> 
> 
> - Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
> 
> - Be nice to make some cost savings
> 
> 
> We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of 
> our links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try 
> and balance utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am 
> thinking a "rough" approach for us would be:
> 
> 
> - Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
> 
> - Take defaults from both and pref one
> 
> 
> Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be 
> most welcome!
> 
> 
> Many Thanks
> 
> 


RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Maqbool Hashim
Hi,

No the current devices can't support full table (well not from both providers) 
we would need to upgrade.  Really in terms of cost saving just want to make 
sure to not get charged overages because we utilise too much of one link and 
not enough of another.  I don't think the shortest AS path will be of that much 
concern or noticeable for most destinations.

We do however have a set of remote sites which communicate over the Internet to 
our central sites where the transit providers are.  Just general Internet at 
the remote sites- but traffic from remote sites to central sites would be the 
most important.

I am just not sure of exactly how to define the "partial" routing table 
criteria to our two providers.  Should we just take routes for each provider 
and their peers and a default from both?

The main reason for not taking a full routing table is the cost/inconvenience 
of upgrading existing hardware.

Thanks

-Original Message-
From: Joseph Jackson [mailto:jjack...@aninetworks.net] 
Sent: 31 May 2015 12:41
To: Maqbool Hashim; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Can your devices support a full table?  

You can load balance  outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table.   
THo that won't be the shortest AS path.  In regards to cost savings how were 
you thinking of doing so?  Does one provider charge more?  Just use the cheaper 
provider.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Maqbool Hashim
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Hi,


We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load 
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as 
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to 
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this document 
from NANOG presentations:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU


The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing 
tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents which 
suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depends on 
our criteria and requirements for load balancing:


- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation

- Be nice to make some cost savings


We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our links 
is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance 
utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rough" 
approach for us would be:


- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers

- Take defaults from both and pref one


Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most welcome!


Many Thanks



Re: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
If you wish to do outbound traffic engineering, and want to take advantage of 
best paths to different networks (outbound), then you have to take full routes.

Or putting it  another way Taking full routes offers the most flexibility, 
anything else would be a compromise (an acceptable compromise) to overcome some 
existing resource limitations...  

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Maqbool Hashim" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 4:36:34 AM
> Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load
> balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as
> efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us
> to take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this
> document from NANOG presentations:
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU
> 
> 
> The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing
> tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents
> which suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it
> depends on our criteria and requirements for load balancing:
> 
> 
> - Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation
> 
> - Be nice to make some cost savings
> 
> 
> We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our
> links is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance
> utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a
> "rough" approach for us would be:
> 
> 
> - Take partial (customer) routes from both providers
> 
> - Take defaults from both and pref one
> 
> 
> Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most
> welcome!
> 
> 
> Many Thanks
> 
> 


RE: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

2015-05-31 Thread Joseph Jackson
Can your devices support a full table?  

You can load balance  outbound traffic easily with out doing a full table.   
THo that won't be the shortest AS path.  In regards to cost savings how were 
you thinking of doing so?  Does one provider charge more?  Just use the cheaper 
provider.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Maqbool Hashim
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 3:37 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: BGP Multihoming 2 providers full or partial?

Hi,


We are an enterprise that are eBGP multihoming to two ISPs. We wish to load 
balance in inbound and outbound traffic thereby using our capacity as 
efficiently as possible. My current feeling is that it would be crazy for us to 
take a full Internet routing table from either ISP. I have read this document 
from NANOG presentations:


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nanog.org%2Fmeetings%2Fnanog41%2Fpresentations%2FBGPMultihoming.pdf&ei=cyRnVb--FeWY7gbq4oHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFsMx3NZ0Vn4bJ5zJpzFz3senbaqg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU


The above document reenforces my opinion that we do not need full routing 
tables. However I was seeking some clarity as there are other documents which 
suggest taking a full routing table would be optimal. I "guess" it depends on 
our criteria and requirements for load balancing:


- Just care about roughly balancing link utilisation

- Be nice to make some cost savings


We have PI space and two Internet routers one for each ISP. Either of our links 
is sufficient to carry all our traffic, but we want to try and balance 
utilisation to remain within our commits if possible. I am thinking a "rough" 
approach for us would be:


- Take partial (customer) routes from both providers

- Take defaults from both and pref one


Maybe we can refine the above a bit more, any suggestions would be most welcome!


Many Thanks