nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint and peering points
From: smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 23:42:28 -0800 (PST)
garlic () garlic com writes: | So by making the change Sprint unilaterally shifts the transit packets from a | public peering point away from themselves. So if a *customer* asks Sprint, either directly, or via a community like 1755:12xx (see whois -h whois.ripe.net AS1755), is this "unilateral" on the part of Sprint? | What would have been nice is for Sprint to tell its customers it was doing | this. Then I would have expected the change in inbound traffic flows and | taken action. If it were a paying customer who indicated that Sprint should prepend, do you feel Sprint should be obliged to inform all customers beforehand? Is your answer different in the case of non-revenue connections ("peers")? How should this be done in the event that "prepend-request" BGP communities are being used by a network connected to Sprint, given that the other network may set or not set the attribute for any given prefix at any given time? | As it was, I opened a trouble report and wasted a lot of time looking | for a problem. Welcome to the Internet, it has routing complexity growth over time! Sean.
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint and peering points Roy (Mar 31)
- Re: Sprint and peering points Jeff Loughridge (Mar 31)
- RE: Sprint and peering points Deepak Jain (Apr 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Sprint and peering points Sean M. Doran (Mar 31)
- Re: Sprint and peering points Miguel A.L. Paraz (Apr 01)
- Re: Sprint and peering points Alan Hannan (Mar 31)