local_preference for transit traffic?

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Dec 15 08:42:37 CST 2011


In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:24:13AM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote:
>  I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing.  I've heard
> about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
> than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something?  Would this
> cause a shift in their favor allowing them to offload more customer traffic
> to their peers without complaint?

It's one of many techniques used by peers to "balance" the ratio.

However, there may be a simpler explanation.  If you bill by the
bit as a transit provider it's in your best interest to make sure
your customer gets as many bits through you as possible.  Plus if
you can fill their pipe, they need to buy an upgrade to you.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111215/e3f81a9f/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list