nanog mailing list archives
Re: Networks ignoring prepends?
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 14:39:37 -0800
And now you are faced with an object lesson as to why TE routes are so prevalent. Less specifics are your only functional alternative here. In most cases, you shouldn’t need more than 2 per prefix. Owen
On Jan 22, 2024, at 12:16, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:23 AM Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org> wrote:You may be limited to seeing if your backup providers have community controls that would let you tell them "don't share with Centurylink"As I already explained, neither the primary nor any of the backup providers directly peer with Centurylink, thus have no communities for controlling announcements to Centurylink. I hate to litter the table with a batch of more-specifics that only originate from the short, preferred link but I'm not hearing any practical alternatives. Treating my distant links as equivalent even though I told you with prepends that they are not leaves me with few knobs I can turn. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends?, (continued)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Tom Beecher (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? James Jun (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Niels Bakker (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Alex Le Heux (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 22)