Re: Carrier redundancy (Full vs. Partial)

Ryan,

Once again...A good example for a starting point.

-- 
Paul Negron
CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
Senior Technical Instructor
www.micronicstraining.com
> From: Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com>
> Reply-To: Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 01:06:25 +0000
> To: "Shaun Gomez (4g1vn)" <shaun.gomez_at_gmail.com>, Cisco certification
> <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> Conversation: Carrier redundancy (Full vs. Partial)
> Subject: RE: Carrier redundancy (Full vs. Partial)
> 
> Shaun,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On
>> Behalf Of Shaun Gomez (4g1vn)
>> 
>> What are the advantages/disadvantages of accepting a full vs. partial table
>> from the SP? This is for multihomed customers for Internet resiliency
>> (primary purpose) and load balancing (secondary purpose).
>> 
> 
> As Paul has already mentioned, you have more choices about what to do with
> your egress traffic if you receive full feeds.   If you router has the juice
> and memory, you may want to consider a full feed.  If your links are different
> speeds, you may consider customer only / internal routes from your less
> preferred carrier.  Here is an example of XO's routing policy:
> 
> http://www.onesc.net/communities/as2828/
> 
> "XO Only Routes  Routes only originated by XO or received from our BGP
> customers."  - this feed combined with a default and a more preferred default
> from your primary carrier would give some basic load balancing with
> redundancy.
> 
> -ryan
> 
> 
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net