nanog mailing list archives
Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:00:09 -0500
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Nick Olsen <nick () flhsi com> wrote:
I hear you guys, It's done that way for a bit of traffic steering. If I could get away with just the aggregates I would, Trust me. Nick Olsen Network Operations (855) FLSPEED x106 ---------------------------------------- From: "Berry Mobley" <berry () gadsdenst org> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:45 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements [...]Please, unless you really know why you need to do otherwise, just originate your aggregates.+1
That should be unnessecary, the local prefs should already be winning as a customer vs transit/peer for equal prefix length. As an aside, generally inbound traffic steering as a reason for disaggregation is fairly frowned upon by the community at large as it effectively makes everyone else pay more in additional hardware cost for your savings. -Blake
Current thread:
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements, (continued)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Matt Addison (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Hudson (Aug 30)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements james machado (Aug 30)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements John van Oppen (Aug 30)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Mikael Abrahamsson (Aug 30)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Harry Hoffman (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Jon Lewis (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Dunlap (Aug 29)
- RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Paul Vinciguerra (Aug 29)
- Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements Blake Dunlap (Aug 29)