On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:17 AM Matthew Petach <mpet...@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 b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/MKGB2PKDIEZMXD6VT4WNWMZ5BOV7P2OF/
