[NANOG] Re: question about peering relationships

[William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:17 AM Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 8:31 AM William Herrin via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 8:10 AM Elmar K. Bins via NANOG
> > <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> > > Yes, and it's very often a mess traffic-engineering wise...
> >
> > Now, if one of the networks is playing local pref games, which they
> > shouldn't be doing, then they may misroute packets the long way around
> > the planet. But that's their fault for playing local pref games.
>
> Bill--can you clarify why you feel setting localpref values for peers differently from customers
> is something ISPs "shouldn't be doing?"

Hi Matt,

Because, as Elmar alluded to, it makes a mess traffic engineering
wise. Like the one where I ended up having to announce both a covering
and disaggregates to overcome a provider of a provider localprefing my
routes on a grand tour of the continental United States when they had
a peeing route to me five miles down the road.
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2024-January/224628.html

> Is it your assertion that as an ISP, as a provider of services to my customers, I should leave
> it up to tie-breaking heuristics further and further down the BGP decision tree as to whether
> I can earn money by carrying traffic or not?

Not all hamburger joints are in the business of selling quality beef. Is yours?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/MKGB2PKDIEZMXD6VT4WNWMZ5BOV7P2OF/