nanog mailing list archives
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 10:35:37 -0800
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.
Current thread:
- Re: local_preference for transit traffic?, (continued)
- 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? 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)