nanog mailing list archives
Re: more-specifics via IX
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:05:57 -0400
On Oct 15, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Mike Leber wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer customer advertisements over peers' advertisements.There is a customer's customer who is advertising more-specifics at theIX (and using a different source AS, to boot)Time to time you will see this.You could also hear the more specifics from another peer that is one oftheir transit providers or you could hear them via one of your transit providers.I can think of a couple ways to prevent hearing these, but thought I should ask for suggestions first.You can do all kinds of things to other network's routes especially whenthose routes aren't from your customers and what you are doing doesn't break connectivity (or solves a capacity problem and improvesconnectivity). However, if you tweak routes of a paying customer then youwill need to consider what your answer to your customer will be for overriding their traffic engineering.
In this case it's his customer's customer... so no answer _necessary_ (as I've learnt from experience)
Current thread:
- Re: more-specifics via IX, (continued)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Bradley Urberg Carlson (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX David Ulevitch (Oct 18)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Stephen Wilcox (Oct 17)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Che-Hoo CHENG (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX Adrian Chadd (Oct 15)
- Re: more-specifics via IX John Payne (Oct 15)