Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:42:37 -0800

In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:24:13AM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
 I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing.  I've heard
about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something?  Would this
cause a shift in their favor allowing them to offload more customer traffic
to their peers without complaint?

It's one of many techniques used by peers to "balance" the ratio.

However, there may be a simpler explanation.  If you bill by the
bit as a transit provider it's in your best interest to make sure
your customer gets as many bits through you as possible.  Plus if
you can fill their pipe, they need to buy an upgrade to you.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: _bin
Description:


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault