Dual Homed BGP

[amir.lists at gmail.com (Amir Herzberg)]

Dear Job and NANOG,

Just wondering, wouldn't any of you guys consider using full tables in this
case, for  the ability to detect and avoid prefix hijacks (using RPKI/ROV
or other means)?

Of course, I'm focused on security, and I know this is often not a high
priority for a real network manager who has many other considerations; just
want to know. Thanks.
-- 
Amir



On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:

> Dear Brian,
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 17:40, Brian <brian.bsi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all. I am having a hard time trying to articulate why a Dual Home
>> ISP should have full tables. My understanding has always been that full
>> tables when dual homed allow much more control. Especially in helping to
>> prevent Async routes.
>>
>
> The advantage of receiving full routing tables from both providers is that
> in cases where one of the two providers is not yet fully converged, your
> routers will use the other provider for those missing destinations. This
> may happen during maintenance or router boot-up in your upstreamâ??s network.
>
> Another advantage of receiving full routes is that you can manipulate
> LOCAL_PREF per destination, or compose routing policy based on per-route
> attributes such as BGP communities your upstreams set. It can happen that a
> provider is great for 99% of destinations, except a few - without full
> tables such granular traffic-engineering can be cumbersome.
>
> Virtually all internet routing is asymmetric, I wouldnâ??t consider that an
> issue.
>
> Am I crazy?
>>
>
> I dropped out of university, never completed my psychology studies, I fear
> I am unqualified to answer this question. ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200127/c21f5b13/attachment.html>