On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 07:11:12AM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2020-08-24, Claudio Jeker <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 04:36:10PM +0000, Laura Smith wrote: > >> *> N 2001:db8:aaaa::/29 2001:db8:aaaa::1111:1 100 100 > >> 64512 65500 i > >> * N 2001:db8:aaaa::/29 2001:db8:aaaa::2222:2 100 100 > >> 65500 65500 i > >> > >> In this example, both 64512 and 65500 are peers (med=100) but obviously > >> 65500 65500 should be the preferred route. > > That's not obvious to me. (The behaviour would be the same with the more > common localpref setting too).
AS path length is the same for both cases and med is also the same. The selected path comes from the peer with the lowest IP address I guess. > > > Now it is a bit strange that an AS is prepending on peering. I wonder why > > they do that (is their connection to the IX undersized?). > Maybe AS 65500 just aranged a new peering with AS 64512 and now needs to impose more traffic to suffice some peering agreements? Dr. Peering might give some hints. ;-) http://drpeering.net/tools/HTML_IPP/ipptoc.html
