Hi,
On 1 June 2011 06:31, vince anton mvan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all
{cut}
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to
me this seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not
Hi,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 03:17:11PM +0200, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
I believe the new customer questionnaire should query customers as to who
they use as transit
-and if one of the customer upstream ISPs happens to be your peer
than you should not advertise prefixes of the particular
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:31:42AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:31 +0200, vince anton wrote:
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to
me this seems
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 09:18 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
If the customer is really creative, they announce the more specifics via
the peering link *only* (but not to the world). So all the traffic is
attracted by the aggregate from your upstreams into your AS, and there the
packets get
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:37:59AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 09:18 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
If the customer is really creative, they announce the more specifics via
the peering link *only* (but not to the world). So all the traffic is
attracted by the
-Original Message-
From: Gert Doering [mailto:g...@greenie.muc.de]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Vitkovsky, Adam
Cc: vince anton; cisco-nsp
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes
Hi,
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 03:17:11PM +0200, Vitkovsky, Adam wrote:
I believe the new customer
Hello everyone,
need some insight from the list as how to best approach a bgp routing/policy
issue, and whats generally done and considered good practise and good
policy.
I operate a transit AS (say AS10), and I have a customer (AS 5) who buys
transit from me.
I also peer with AS11 - no
2011/5/31 vince anton mvan...@gmail.com
Hello everyone,
need some insight from the list as how to best approach a bgp
routing/policy
issue, and whats generally done and considered good practise and good
policy.
Not to be rude but this might actually be the least specific question I've
filter with your customer prefixes/ASNs
but in reality...
adam
-Original Message-
From: cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of vince anton
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:57 PM
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes
Hello
vince anton wrote:
So what happens now is that for this more specific customer prefix, I have a
specific route saying some AS5 nets are preferable via the peering link than
via the direct customer link, and if I want to deliver transit traffic to
my customer, my router would choose the peering
On Tue, 31 May 2011, vince anton wrote:
I operate a transit AS (say AS10), and I have a customer (AS 5) who buys
transit from me.
I also peer with AS11 - no transit either way on this, just peering, ie
sending my networks to AS11, and receiving AS11's networks
Now AS5 also becomes a transit
On 5/31/2011 5:57 AM, vince anton wrote:
So what happens now is that for this more specific customer prefix, I have a
specific route saying some AS5 nets are preferable via the peering link than
via the direct customer link, and if I want to deliver transit traffic to
my customer, my router
-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of vince anton
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:57 PM
To: cisco-nsp
Subject: [c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes
Hello everyone,
need some insight from the list as how to best approach a bgp routing/policy
issue, and whats generally done and considered good
On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 09:46:45 PM Kevin Loch wrote:
Instead of trying to figure out how to break your
customer's routing policy, you might ask them why they
prefer the other transit provider. Is it because of
cost? Capacity issues? Do they send you some more
specific and others to AS11?.
My standard practice has always been to apply a high local preference
on customer-announced routes, medium local pref on peer-announced
routes, and low (but still higher than the system default of 100)
local pref on upstream-announced routes. The logic behind this is:
I'd rather get paid for
I am not quite sure I understand exactly which problem it is you are trying
to solve.
Let us assume you (AS10) have been assigned 10/8 from RIPE.
You assign your customer (AS5) a 10.0.0.0/22.
As stated, you peer with AS11.
Many providers will not route provider assigned (PA) addresses from
You missed filing appropriate route objects.
If you can file the correct objects it may mitigate upstream filter issues if
the upstreams build their data from filed objects.
On May 31, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Andrew Miehs wrote:
I am not quite sure I understand exactly which problem it is you are
Hi all
thanks for feedback. seems like different people are going around this in
different ways, some allow transit through peering links, and some outright
block this from day0
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a peering link. I dont understand why
On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 02:31:45 AM vince anton wrote:
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with
passing transit traffic over a peering link. I dont
understand why you would want to do this, as to me this
seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not
intentional), and
On 5/31/2011 1:31 PM, vince anton wrote:
thanks for feedback. seems like different people are going around this in
different ways, some allow transit through peering links, and some outright
block this from day0
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a
vince anton wrote:
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to
me this seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not intentional), and
potentially very expensive, or loss of revenue.
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:31 +0200, vince anton wrote:
it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to
me this seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not intentional), and
potentially very
On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 06:31:42 AM Peter Rathlev wrote:
I'm seeing this from a customer perspective: Why on earth
should you not respect the more specific routes via the
peering link?
What if I have a primary connection from AS11 and buy a
backup connection (much lower bandwidth) from
23 matches
Mail list logo
