Hi Jürgen, Well, I did say "nearly" every major IP transit provider.. :-)
If BGP action communities are important to your network and your existing upstream(s) don't support them, then maybe it is time to start looking for a different transit provider. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 03:31 PM, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: > Hi Dovid, > > Yes, vitamin B often helps. But it doesn't matter - if the transit provider > doesn't support it on an official way you do net get an SLA for the > communities. They could stop working from one day to another ... > > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Dovid Bender [mailto:do...@telecurve.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Jänner 2016 15:23 > An: Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at>; NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>; i3D > net - Martijn Schmidt <martijnschm...@i3d.net>; Andrey Yakovlev > <andy.ya...@ya.ru>; Bernd Spiess <bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>; Colton Conor > <colton.co...@gmail.com>; Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Peering Exchange > > HE will if you know who to speak to... > > Regards, > > Dovid > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jürgen Jaritsch <j...@anexia.at> > Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:31 > To: i3D net - Martijn Schmidt<martijnschm...@i3d.net>; Andrey > Yakovlev<andy.ya...@ya.ru>; Bernd Spiess<bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>; Colton > Conor<colton.co...@gmail.com>; Hugo Slabbert<h...@slabnet.com> > Cc: NANOG<nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: AW: AW: Peering Exchange > > Hi Martjin, > >> I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action >> community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in > That’s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit > providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous > is Hurricane Electric :( > > > > Jürgen Jaritsch > Head of Network & Infrastructure > > ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH > > Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 > Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 > > E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com > Web: http://www.anexia-it.com > > Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler > Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn > Schmidt > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Jänner 2016 15:01 > An: Andrey Yakovlev <andy.ya...@ya.ru>; Bernd Spiess > <bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>; Colton Conor <colton.co...@gmail.com>; Hugo > Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange > > "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be > exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be > exported at a different location." > > That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit > provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their > customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing > it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of > course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" > can not be controlled that way. > > Best regards, > Martijn > > On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: >> Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be >> listed at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's >> simply their police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the >> same for everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you >> reach >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where >> someone demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because >> his competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company >> had no real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port >> would just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a >> barely better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering >> policy to become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better >> explanation and some people just don't want to accept a different policy to >> different players. >> We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported >> to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a >> different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? >> Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will >> bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the >> club. >> >> -- >> ./andy >> >> >> 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" <bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>: >>>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >>> Quite many ixp´s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >>> Typical offer of a looking glass: >>> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >>> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >>> on these prefixes >>> >>> E.g.: >>> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >>> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >>> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >>> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >>> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >>> etc... >>> >>> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >>> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >>> login ... >>> >>> Bernd >>> (yes ... I do work for de-cix) > >
