Hi Steve.. That is correct - we will actually be taking any specifics and tagging them with one community. We will use that community only with certain upstream and peering points.
Our overall problem is that we have one upstream that we are stuck with in contract and are not remotely meeting our minimum traffic levels with them - if we start prepending then we get too large of a traffic shift. So I'm hoping to take a few /22 and maybe a /20 and advertise it as a more specific route to that upstream and also to our peering points (we don't want to push any traffic away from peering points of course). Thanks, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:st...@ibctech.ca] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:02 AM To: Paul Stewart Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BGP Advertising - Question re more specific block * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 06/04/09 at 09:01:56 Paul Stewart wrote: > We are advertising a specific /22 that belongs to a /18 block via one > specific upstream BGP connection. The /18 is advertised to all upstreams, > the /22 is only advertised to one upstream as a method of influencing > traffic via that carrier (knowing that if that particular carrier went down, > the less specific subnet will still be reachable via the other providers). > Prepending is very ugly for this situation FYI. Paul, Just so I can get a better understanding, you are applying a community to each /22 you are advertising to certain peers. You are then applying a route-map to a particular peer, that only sends the prefixes that have a particular community set. Is this correct? Do you advertise this exact group of /22's to more than one upstream peer? Steve * Thawte Freemail Member <st...@ibctech.ca> * Issuer: Thawte Consulting (Pty) Ltd. - Unverified _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
