BBN peering, a technical issue

Jerry Scharf scharf at
Sat Aug 15 15:17:49 UTC 1998

Having waded through discussions of policy and definitions of transit, I 
thought I would try to make something more personally interesting out of this 

Let's say I have coloA, a colo company who wants to go out of it's way to not 
screw the big carrier B. In fact, I want to move all the packets destined for 
B on my network as far as I can and then dump it an the peering point closest 
to B's final destination. They will do hot potato to me, but I want to do the 
opposite with them.

Since we assume A and B are talking BGP, and B is doing it's job of not 
polluting the internet routing tables, there is most likely not going to be 
enough prefixes to make this work stock, MEDs or no. How does B send his POP 
level routing to A? (I make the assumption that the POP level is the closest 
correspondence to exchange connections.) Does this change if B is using BGP 
confederations or not? In this case, leaking is not a problem because A is a 
transit provider for no one and the filters eat all the routes, more specific 
or less.

Are there any downsides to B giving this information to A?

sorry, I'll try to keep the technical/operational issues to a minimum,

More information about the NANOG mailing list