Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
From: Paul Vinciguerra <pvinci () VinciConsulting com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:08:52 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris () gmail com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:00 PM
To: nick () flhsi com
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:

I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.

If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.

Nick Olsen
Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106

 From: "Berry Mobley" <berry () gadsdenst org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:45 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements


Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just 
originate your aggregates.


That should be unnessecary, the local prefs should already be winning as a customer vs transit/peer for equal prefix 

As an aside, generally inbound traffic steering as a reason for disaggregation is fairly frowned upon by the community 
at large as it effectively makes everyone else pay more in additional hardware cost for your savings.


If you have provided addressing from your aggregate to your customer and they have indicated that they are 
multi-homing, you need to preserve their prefix-length in your outbound advertisements, or the redundant provider 
carries the inbound traffic.  Is this also frowned on?  To me, this is the multihoming tax we all pay for.


  By Date           By Thread  

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