No, he doesn't. W draws a gige from A How A connects to C is none of W's business. If it's through B, then it is for A and B to negotiate a suitable peering agreement. W is using B as backup and wants no traffic from it unless A goes down. How do you think the traffic should flow in this case?
Cheers, Jakob. -----Original Message----- From: rrg [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:59 PM To: RRG Subject: Re: [rrg] procedural aggregation Hi Folks, Here's another circumstance worth mentioning. This particular one is an undesirable case that exists in BGP today. It would be better if it didn't work. When I get to procedural aggregation, it'll be important to consider whether my notions make this scenario worse. You have three networks: A, B and C. A peers with B, B peers with C. A-B-C You have a customer, W. W buys transit service from A (gige) and B (T1). A-B-C | / W W announces 10.1.2.0/23 to B and announces 10.1.2.0/24 plus 10.1.3.0/24 to A. Because W is a customer, B announces 10.1.2.0/23 to C but as soon as the packet arrives at B from C, B sends it to A because of the more specific route it heard from A. This allows W to draw a gige of traffic through B even though he's only paying for a T1. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
