nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP peering question
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:37:26 -0400
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peersor if you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that both providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between the two providers. The definition of “peering” to most ISPs would definitely not include becoming a “hop” between two peers. Most networks would de-peer you if you sent their prefixes to another peer.
Hi Patrick, I'm given to understand this practice is common in service providers connecting academia. Three or more service providers serving schools will agree to pass packets even if neither school terminates at the current ISP. This comes up in the discussion of "valley free" inter-domain routing because it's one of the cases that forms a valley where the participating organization is not paid for or directly donating the transiting packets. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Current thread:
- Re: BGP peering question, (continued)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Niels Bakker (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Nick Hilliard (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Wolfgang Tremmel (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question David Hofstee (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question cyrus ramirez via NANOG (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question Bryan Holloway (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bob Evans (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Ethan E. Dee (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question craig washington (Jul 14)
- Re: BGP peering question Owen DeLong (Jul 13)
- Re: BGP peering question H I Baysal (Jul 14)