aggregation & table entries
dr at cluenet.de
Thu Oct 14 15:38:36 UTC 2004
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:24:21PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Honestly, I fail to see this as a big problem. If they don't want to
> announce the prefix to us, why would they want to source traffic from
> that prefix to us?
I could delve in some exceptionally ugly examples of peering politics
but refrain to do that.
Let's just say that it's one way to make things "look wrong" to The
Uninitiated and easy to point complainers to the other party.
> The inbound traffic engineering is the more tricky
> business, not the outbound.
Well, but outbound TE based on _source_ needs policy routing. With
some vendor's gear this is not a too big problem, but with some other
vendor's gear this comes at a much higher price.
> If they want to keep the link usage low, they could just send it
> with no-export or no-advertise, or suitably prepended.
Prepend doesn't work as you as upstream normally localpref your
customers above all others (you have to by default, otherwise there
are setups in which $customer might be without _any_ upstream although
the link to you is still fine).
no-export doesn't work as $customer doesn't want ANY traffic from
your other customers to him directly for certain prefixes.
no-advertise is ugly++.
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
More information about the NANOG