Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:35:37 -0800

On 12/17/11 00:14 , Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote:

Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting
origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to
prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to
local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear
this was "changing" the routes in some meaningful way;
if a customer was multihomed to us and another provider,
this might affect path selection.

This raises an interesting question we've dealt with many a 
time in our network - outside of situations mandated by 
governments or some such, are ISP's happy to peer with their 
customers (where "peer" = settlement-free exchanging of 
routes/traffic across public interconnects while "customers" 
= servicing a commercial IP Transit contract)?

In the circumstances where I've seen this are rare... We have had
transit providers that we used who also peered with us on exchange
fabrics for v6 that's about it.

Mark.



  By Date           By Thread  

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