[c-nsp] Full net table too large for Sup720 already?

[Jon Lewis]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Dean Smith wrote:

> As someone who works exclusively in a private network (albeit an 18K
> site/45K route private network) can someone run through the reasons people
> need the complete internet route table in quite so many places ?
>
> Does everyone who is holding the full table have multiple upstreams ?
> (presumably for more than a straight active/standby failover)

It's typically done as part of multihoming, taking a full set of routes 
from each of your transit providers.  You can multihome without taking 
full routes from each/either provider, but doing it that way means you 
won't always take the best path to a remote network, and you may even send 
traffic to a provider that has no route to the destination.

> Do you hold it on all your boxes including customer aggregators or simply on
> a few border routers ?

That would depend on the layout of the network, but you probably 
wouldn't need full routes on customer aggregation gear unless that gear 
was talking to multihomed customers with whom you're doing BGP and the 
customers are expecting full routes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________