Canadian routes with BGP no-export communities
alan at gi.net
Fri Jun 7 03:35:17 UTC 1996
Sounds to me like Policy Based Routing is starting to evolve in a
particularly interesting way.
......... Sean Donelan is rumored to have said:
] Does anyone know what's going on in Canada?
] In the last couple of weeks fONOROLA/iStar.net changed how they
] announce aggregated networks. Now fONOROLA is sending some more
] specific network announcements for multi-homed networks in 220.127.116.11
] with a "no-export" BGP community to MCI, and ANS.
] As long as you only connect with MCI or ANS, and use their IGP,
] things look pretty typical because the more specifics are carried
] internally. But if you use BGP, the no-export means any peers
] with MCI won't see the more specific network announcement from MCI.
] The problem shows up when you see routes from Sprintlink. A few
] Canadian network connect through Sprint/Canada as well as fONOROLA.
] The more specific networks from 198.53 are announced by Sprintlink.
] Since the no-export suppressed the more specific announcement to
] MCI BGP peers, the traffic for those Canadian sites follows the
] more specific network announcement and heads for Sprint.
] I understand the BGP mechanics are working as specified, so it
] isn't "broken" per se. But I'm just wondering if Canadian sites
] really expect traffic to go via Stockton, California?
] I haven't been able to reach anyone at fONOROLA/Istar. I was just
] wondering if any other North American network operators had heard
] what was supposed to happen last month when fONOROLA made these
] Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
] Affiliation given for identification not representation
More information about the NANOG