I agree with most of these sentiments, especially the part about making a statement in the BCP that prepending is not bad in and of itself, it just has to be applied with care and never more than actually needed to achieve the intended outcome.
That being said, selective more specific prefix announcements are the bane of my existence when attempting to keep traffic local in the less mainstream regions of the world. When a given network has some local transit/peer and some backhauled transit/peer to which it sends a different set of more specifics, resolving routing hairpins can become extremely time consuming since we have to convince the team running that network to adjust their routing policy - as opposed to unilaterally assigning a higher LocalPref to the announcement which may have a longer AS-path but doesn't take a scenic route through $cheap_transit/peering_region. So please, let's not start recommending the use of selective more specific prefix announcements to operators - I'd rather have the longer AS-paths. ;) Best regards, Martijn Schmidt ________________________________ From: GROW <grow-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> Sent: 26 July 2020 21:10 To: Michael McBride <michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com> Cc: grow@ietf.org <grow@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [GROW] AS_Path prepend BCP nice to see something starting in this space no need to attribute nationality to bad practice examples too much concentration on bad examples and not enough on why each of the recommended practices is good neglects to mention alternative TE such as longer prefix announcement randy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
