Re: Peering + Transit Circuits

[Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net>]

Thanks for the explanation, 
I am still trying to figure out the realistic business case where doing something like this would make sense to any 
party. 
(unless purely malicious or in error). 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 

> From: "Pshem Kowalczyk" <pshem.k () gmail com>
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal () snappytelecom net>, "Tim Durack" <tdurack () gmail com>
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog () nanog org>, cisco-nsp () puck nether net
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 7:00:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Peering + Transit Circuits

> It's actually quite easy.
> Provider1 is present at Exchange1 and Exchange2, so is Provider2. Provider2
> doesn't want to pay for the traffic between Exchange1 and Exchange2, so it
> points a static route for all prefixes it has in Exchange2 via Provider1's IP
> address in Exchange1 and does the same in Exchange2. Provider1's router
> receives traffic, checks where it should go (Exchange2) and it forwards the
> traffic. So the traffic flows like this:

> Provider2 (Exchange1) -> Provider1 -> (Exchange2) Provider2, all due to static
> routes.

> kind regards
> Pshem

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 10:38 Faisal Imtiaz < faisal () snappytelecom net > wrote:

> > Let me start backwards...

> > To me 'peering' is sharing internal routes and downstream customer routes,and
> > not external ones.
> > IP transit is all of the external routes including internal routes & downstream
> > customer routes

> > Having said that..... if one is control of what IP Prefixes get advertised to
> > whom... how exactly someone (peers) 'steal' transit ?
> > (If one is not managing the filters well then yes it is possible, but that would
> > be a configuration error ?)

> > Maybe I am naive, to my Peering routes (relationships) are a subset of IP
> > Transit Routes (relationships)

> > Based on above belief...

> > Then Item # 3, becomes the choice of the OP.... where one can make one of two
> > starting assumptions... We will trust everything coming in and change what we
> > don't like... or We will not trust anything coming in, and change (accept) what
> > we like.

> > Items # 1 & 2, would be a function of network design, technical requirements
> > (maintenance window) etc etc.. easier to deal with a distributed edge vs all in
> > one when one has to bring anything down for any reason..

> > I am open to learning and being corrected if any of the above is wrong !

> > Faisal Imtiaz
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tim Durack" < tdurack () gmail com >
> > > To: cisco-nsp () puck nether net , "nanog list" < nanog () nanog org >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:29:31 AM
> > > Subject: Peering + Transit Circuits

> > > Question: What is the preferred practice for separating peering and transit
> > > circuits?

> > > 1. Terminate peering and transit on separate routers.
> > > 2. Terminate peering and transit circuits in separate VRFs.
> > > 3. QoS/QPPB (
> > > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog42/presentations/DavidSmith-PeeringPolicyEnforcement.pdf
> > > )
> > > 4. Don't worry about peers stealing transit.
> > > 5. What is peering?

> > > Your comments are appreciated.

> > > --
> > > Tim:>