On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 09:48:04AM -, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> Guesses can be made, but a quick email might get a more accurate
> answer :) "Hi, I see you are padding your announcements at $IX and we
> are seeing you from other peers with the same path length, would you
> prefer we send to
On 2020-08-25, Remi Locherer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 07:11:12AM -, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2020-08-24, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:36:10PM +, Laura Smith wrote:
>> >> *> N 2001:db8:::/29 2001:db8::::1 100 100
>> >>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 07:11:12AM -, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020-08-24, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:36:10PM +, Laura Smith wrote:
> >> *> N 2001:db8:::/29 2001:db8::::1 100 100
> >> 64512 65500 i
> >> * N 2001:db8:::/29
On 2020-08-24, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:36:10PM +, Laura Smith wrote:
>> *> N 2001:db8:::/29 2001:db8::::1 100 100 64512
>> 65500 i
>> * N 2001:db8:::/29 2001:db8::::2 100 100 65500
>> 65500 i
>>
>> In this
Hi,
Let's say I've got a scenario where I've got transit ISPs and peering
connections.
My general config rule is that I use med to prioritise peering over transit
(because localpref is too high up in the BGP selection algorithm, so localpref
is a sledgehammer to crack a nut).
That setup has
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:36:10PM +, Laura Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Let's say I've got a scenario where I've got transit ISPs and peering
> connections.
>
> My general config rule is that I use med to prioritise peering over transit
> (because localpref is too high up in the BGP selection
6 matches
Mail list logo