Level 3 BGP Advertisements

Paul Vinciguerra pvinci at VinciConsulting.com
Wed Aug 29 20:08:52 UTC 2012

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:00 PM
To: nick at flhsi.com
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen <nick at flhsi.com> wrote:

> I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering.
> If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me.
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106
> ----------------------------------------
>  From: "Berry Mobley" <berry at gadsdenst.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:45 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
> [...]
> >Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just 
> >originate your aggregates.
> +1

That should be unnessecary, the local prefs should already be winning as a customer vs transit/peer for equal prefix length.

As an aside, generally inbound traffic steering as a reason for disaggregation is fairly frowned upon by the community at large as it effectively makes everyone else pay more in additional hardware cost for your savings.


If you have provided addressing from your aggregate to your customer and they have indicated that they are multi-homing, you need to preserve their prefix-length in your outbound advertisements, or the redundant provider carries the inbound traffic.  Is this also frowned on?  To me, this is the multihoming tax we all pay for.


More information about the NANOG mailing list