local_preference for transit traffic?

Joel jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sat Dec 17 18:35:37 UTC 2011

On 12/17/11 00:14 , Mark Tinka wrote:
> 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)?

In the circumstances where I've seen this are rare... We have had
transit providers that we used who also peered with us on exchange
fabrics for v6 that's about it.

> Mark.

More information about the NANOG mailing list