RE: Level 3 BGP Advertisements

[Paul Vinciguerra <pvinci () VinciConsulting com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Dunlap [mailto:ikiris () gmail com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:00 PM
To: nick () flhsi com
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Level 3 BGP Advertisements

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


If you have provided addressing from your aggregate to your customer and they have indicated that they are 
multi-homing, you need to preserve their prefix-length in your outbound advertisements, or the redundant provider 
carries the inbound traffic.  Is this also frowned on?  To me, this is the multihoming tax we all pay for.

Paul