When does a BGP full feed make sense vs. default route?

lordy

Dear all,

I am currently in the process of migrating/updating a network with a bunch of hosts on it for a small VoIP provider.

They currently have their own AS but only one uplink to the hosting company with BGP. They currently receive the full BGP table through this session. However, I doubt that this is really useful when you only have one uplink anyway. If I changed them from full feed to just a default route I guess I could run the BGP on their new multi-layer switches and get rid off the routers altogether.

Am I correct in saying: "A full feed only makes sense when you have more than one transit uplink" ?
Another question: If I set up a peering (not transit) this would still work, because they would send more specific routes than the default from the Transit provider, right?

dtrujillo63

I don't see any benefits of having full routes if they only have a single upstream provider. I would go with just a default route and eliminate the load of their routing having to store 400K routes.

networker050184

What you can do is get full routes+default and just filter down to a default route if that's all you want. That way you can control what routes you take and when. Much easier than worrying about putting in a change request with your provider which will take time and most likely cost money if you ever decide you need the full table.


As far as setting up peering, I assume you mean a private peering with another organization and only accepting their routes? If so yes that should work fine as well whether you take a full feed or default only.

lordy

@networker050184:

Having both is an excellent idea. I think I will go with that. Thanks a lot!