nanog mailing list archives

RE: Policy Routing


From: "Przemyslaw Karwasiecki" <karwas () ifxcorp com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:09:26 -0400


Jeff,

Please let me understand it a little bit more:

If this OC12 path is so good, why you will simply
not modify your LOCAL_PREF in such way that ALL your
traffic will go over this link?

In such way you will simply send to your customer
your BGP routing table and everything will be simple:
What you have in your routing table will be what your
customer will receive from you and (more importantly)
it will also represent how you are really forwarding 
packets.


Przemek


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Jeff Cates
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 1:54 AM
To: John Fraizer; Travis Pugh; Jeff Cates
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: Policy Routing



For the record, this "cheap path" is an OC-12 to a
well connected Tier 1 provider that we got a
"sweatheart" deal on, and, it's only 2 percent
utilized.

Again, I want to emphasize that I wholeheartedly agree
with those who have commented on the concept of full
disclosure in a scenario such as this. I'm just
looking for technical opinions on how this can be
accomplished most effectively.

--Jeff

--- Przemyslaw Karwasiecki <karwas () ifxcorp com> wrote:
John,

First: I agree with you at your main point 110% so
my other
       comment is strictly technical in nature.

Second: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that
if you send
        to company X full view over EBGP there is no
technical
        reason to forward packets over different AS
path.
        After all, you are advertising reachability
via NEXT_HOP,
        which will be your border router.

Before you flame me, please let me reiterate that I
agree with you
on the main point, that making a false/misleading
AS_PATH advertisements
is bad. But I am just curious if it would work
provided that you are
able to forward packets based on some 'coloring'
scheme,
so please consider my comment more as a question
then questioning :-)

Thanks,

Przemek.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu
[mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
John Fraizer
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:57 AM
To: Jeff Cates
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Policy Routing




Replying to my own post with a bit more. (Forgive
me!)

Rereading your post, one would believe that since
"Company X" is a BGP
customer of yours, you're going to be sending them a
full view.  Unless
there is a knob that I'm not familiar with, that
means that you're going
to be sending them the _BEST_ routes that you see in
your core and not
just those from "NSP A" to which you are proposing
to policy-route all of
"Customer X's" traffic.  If this is indeed the case,
I would think that
policy-routing the customers traffic destined for
"prefix Y" via a
path other than the path listed in the NLRI you're
sending "Customer X" on
their BGP feed is outright fraud.

Again, this is in the absence of full disclosure and
it is my (non
esquire) opinion.


---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc


On Sun, 26 Aug 2001, John Fraizer wrote:



I would be very upset if I were "Company X" and I
found out that you were
policy-routing my traffic to the "cheap"
connection vs the best
connection.

Is it just me or do others on the list believe
that in the absence of full
disclosure this would be shady at best?


---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc


On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Jeff Cates wrote:


Hello,

I am a network engineer at a regional southeast
USA
NSP. I am looking for some recommendations
concerning
a scenario that has been presented to me.

My company is attempting to obtain company X's
Internet transit traffic, which will be  BGP-4
peering
over either a T-3 or OC-3. Due to financial
reasons,
my upper management has proposed that I route
company
X's Internet traffic via a specific NSP that we
peer
with, we'll call them NSP-A. Apparently, NSP-A
has a
substantially cheaper rate than our other
upstrem
providers and it is anticipated that this
customer
will be sending a full T3 or OC-3's worth of
traffic
to us.

Redirecting inbound traffic to company X via
NSP-A can
be accomplished very easily through use of AS
path
prepending, however, coming up with a solution
for
egress traffic from company X to NSP-A, via our
AS,
has proven a bit more challenging :-).

The only feasible solution that I've been able
to come
up with is to stick customer X directly on the
router
that peers with NSP-A and employ the use of
policy
routing, which would enable me to set the next
hop for
company X's traffic to the peering address on
NSP-A.

Our NSP-A peering router is a Cisco 12016,
running IOS
12.0(16)S2 and it has 256MB of DRAM.

Additionally, it is configured with NetFlow and
dCEF
switching.

I've never employed policy routing in this type
of
environment and I am concerned about the
overhead that
it might place on the router or on the traffic
traversing the interface.

I've also thought about MPLS TE, however, our
core
backbone does not run MPLS and even if we did, I
believe I would still have to policy route the
traffic
to NSP-A once the MPLS label was popped off the
last
router in the path in transit to the NSP-A
peering
router.

Any ideas or comments would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Jeff

catesjl9394 () yahoo com



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as
$.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/


Current thread: