On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:16:56AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:11???AM James Jun <[email protected]> wrote: > > You (AS11875) have an operational need for good connectivity > > into 3356 but, you made a poor purchasing decision by buying > > IP transit for 11875 from a provider who has 10-AS path into > > 3356 instead of <=3 AS path. You've done a _bad_ job here > > in selecting an inferior pathway into 3356, and what you > > SHOULD have done is to select an IP transit provider who > > has an optimal AS-path into 3356 to meet your operational > > need of having good connectivity into 3356. > > Sophistry. I buy IP transit from 3 providers, one of which has a 3 AS > path to 3356.
Again you omit context. We've already established as per the RFC, that calculation of degree of preference takes precedence over and overrides AS_PATH (Phase 1 decision). Therefore, let's rephrase what you've just said above: You're buying IP transit from 3 providers, two of which are configured with the following known constraints: - 20473 who buys from 1299, who has lower degree of preference into 3356, as 1299 and 3356 are interconnection (could be settlement-free or paid-peer) peering partners. - 53356 who buys from 47787 as a prioritized downstream customer, and then 47787 too subsequently connects into 3356 as a prioritized downstream customer. It's obviously clear that 53356 path you've bought has a priority ticket into 3356 no matter how inferior or long its AS_PATH may be, and the solution is right in front of you. Next. James
