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/
Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Joe Malcolm (Dec 15)
Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Mark Tinka (Dec 18)
Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Joel jaeggli (Dec 17)