nanog mailing list archives
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:35:55 -0500
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Keegan Holley <keegan.holley () sungard com> 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?
Well, if Level3 wanted less ingress traffic, they would probably stop this practice. I would imagine they thought about it carefully. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () inconcepts biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Current thread:
- local_preference for transit traffic? Keegan Holley (Dec 14)
- RE: local_preference for transit traffic? Holmes,David A (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Keegan Holley (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Keegan Holley (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Jeff Wheeler (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Leo Bicknell (Dec 15)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Mark Tinka (Dec 15)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Keegan Holley (Dec 15)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Mark Tinka (Dec 15)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Keegan Holley (Dec 14)
- RE: local_preference for transit traffic? Holmes,David A (Dec 14)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Mark Tinka (Dec 17)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Matthew Petach (Dec 17)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Adam Rothschild (Dec 17)
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic? Mark Tinka (Dec 18)