[afnog] IP transit and Load Balancing

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/Jun/15 18:25, Joey ESQUIBAL wrote:
> Dear AfNOG,
>
> I trust this e-mail finds everyone well.
>
> May I ask your opinion and or best practice about having multiple IP
> transit to 4 different IPLC's.
>
> For argument’s sake, I have allocated sample capacities on each
> circuit below:
>
> IPLC 1 (1 x STM4) => IP Transit 1
> IPLC 2 (1 x STM4) => IP Transit 2
> IPLC 3 (2 x STM1) => IP Transit 1
> IPLC 4 (2 x STM1) => IP Transit 2
>
> All circuit ends to different geographical locations.
>
> I’m thinking of having two IP transit (which I think should be good
> already) and advertise specific prefix(es) on each peer.

Possible.

Since you're multi-homing to the same ISP's, you could ask each of them
to let you know whether they support BGP communities that would allow
you to influence routing within their network through the use of
LOCAL_PREF, AS_PATH prepend, e.t.c.

This way, you can make your announcements uniform to avoid breaking down
prefixes, or you could break down prefixes but attach a NO_EXPORT
community to them, together with other BGP communities your providers
may support, so you get the load sharing without the global pollution.

In case your providers do not support BGP communities you can use, then
you may announce prefixes across each link as you see fit, focusing on
which PoP's are closer to the destinations your customers are trying to
reach, and getting as much bandwidth as you can through those without
running those links hot, in order to reduce administration.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20150610/d92ae653/attachment.html>