nanog mailing list archives
RE: Policy Routing
From: John Fraizer <nanog () Overkill EnterZone Net>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:57:48 -0400 (EDT)
If the OC-12 connection is via a well connected provider and it's that much less expensive than your other providers, and it's seeing that little traffic, I would suggest a MUCH simpler alternative: Tune your route-maps to pref more traffic towards that provider OVERALL. That way, you'll save money on ALL of your customers and not just this one special case. ;) --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Jeff Cates wrote:
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 Ifound out that you werepolicy-routing my traffic to the "cheap"connection vs the bestconnection. Is it just me or do others on the list believethat in the absence of fulldisclosure 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 southeastUSANSP. I am looking for some recommendationsconcerninga scenario that has been presented to me. My company is attempting to obtain company X's Internet transit traffic, which will be BGP-4peeringover either a T-3 or OC-3. Due to financialreasons,my upper management has proposed that I routecompanyX's Internet traffic via a specific NSP that wepeerwith, we'll call them NSP-A. Apparently, NSP-Ahas asubstantially cheaper rate than our otherupstremproviders and it is anticipated that thiscustomerwill be sending a full T3 or OC-3's worth oftrafficto us. Redirecting inbound traffic to company X viaNSP-A canbe accomplished very easily through use of ASpathprepending, however, coming up with a solutionforegress traffic from company X to NSP-A, via ourAS,has proven a bit more challenging :-). The only feasible solution that I've been ableto comeup with is to stick customer X directly on therouterthat peers with NSP-A and employ the use ofpolicyrouting, which would enable me to set the nexthop forcompany X's traffic to the peering address onNSP-A.Our NSP-A peering router is a Cisco 12016,running IOS12.0(16)S2 and it has 256MB of DRAM. Additionally, it is configured with NetFlow anddCEFswitching. I've never employed policy routing in this typeofenvironment and I am concerned about theoverhead thatit might place on the router or on the traffic traversing the interface. I've also thought about MPLS TE, however, ourcorebackbone does not run MPLS and even if we did, I believe I would still have to policy route thetrafficto NSP-A once the MPLS label was popped off thelastrouter in the path in transit to the NSP-Apeeringrouter. Any ideas or comments would be greatlyappreciated.Thanks in advance, Jeff catesjl9394 () yahoo com__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as$.04/minute with Yahoo! Messengerhttp://phonecard.yahoo.com/__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Policy Routing, (continued)
- Re: Policy Routing John Fraizer (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing Travis Pugh (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing jlewis (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing Travis Pugh (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing Travis Pugh (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing John Fraizer (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing Jeff Cates (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing Randy Bush (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing John Fraizer (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing John Fraizer (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing John Fraizer (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing jlewis (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (Aug 26)
- RE: Policy Routing jlewis (Aug 26)
- Re: Policy Routing Alexei Roudnev (Aug 26)