local_preference for transit traffic?

Mark Tinka mtinka at globaltransit.net
Sat Dec 17 08:14:59 UTC 2011

On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote:

> Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting
> origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to
> prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to
> local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear
> this was "changing" the routes in some meaningful way;
> if a customer was multihomed to us and another provider,
> this might affect path selection.

This raises an interesting question we've dealt with many a 
time in our network - outside of situations mandated by 
governments or some such, are ISP's happy to peer with their 
customers (where "peer" = settlement-free exchanging of 
routes/traffic across public interconnects while "customers" 
= servicing a commercial IP Transit contract)?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20111217/b001a72f/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list