Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
of routes that do not originate locally by default before sending to a
other larger transit AS's. Obviously this isn't something that was asked
of th
: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:08 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: local_preference for transit traffic?
Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
of
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:08 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: local_preference for transit traffic?
>
> Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
> where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
> of routes that do not
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
> where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
That sounds like a disreputable practice.
While not quite as obvious, some large transit
I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing. I've heard
about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something? Would this
cause a shift in their favor allowing them to offload more customer traffi
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing. I've heard
> about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
> than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something? Would this
> cause a shif
In a message written on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:24:13AM -0500, Keegan Holley
wrote:
> I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing. I've heard
> about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
> than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing someth
On Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:42:37 PM Leo Bicknell
wrote:
> However, there may be a simpler explanation. If you bill
> by the bit as a transit provider it's in your best
> interest to make sure your customer gets as many bits
> through you as possible. Plus if you can fill their
> pipe, th
2011/12/15 Mark Tinka
> On Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:42:37 PM Leo Bicknell
> wrote:
>
> > However, there may be a simpler explanation. If you bill
> > by the bit as a transit provider it's in your best
> > interest to make sure your customer gets as many bits
> > through you as possible. P
On Friday, December 16, 2011 12:27:48 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, but are connections between ISP's
> normally billed by the bit? I'm a transit AS but not an
> ISP in the traditional sense, so I just have the normal
> monthly billing.
Per-bit billing, for us, is not a pre-r
Jeff Wheeler writes:
>On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Keegan Holley
> wrote:
>> Had in interesting conversation with a transit AS on behalf of a customer
>> where I found out they are using communities to raise the local preference
>
>That sounds like a disreputable practice.
>
>While not quite as
On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote:
> Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting
> origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to
> prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to
> local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear
> this was "changi
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting
>> origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to
>> prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to
>> local prefere
On 12/17/11 00:14 , Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting
>> origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to
>> prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to
>> local preference shortly th
I've had similar experiences to Mr. Petach.
Depending on order of operations, you can look at this from a
different prospective as well -- why go with a soulless entity for
your transit (or transport, collocation, ...) requirements, when you
can "keep it in the family" and engage a peer who alread
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:32:03 AM Matthew Petach
wrote:
> I've been able to negotiate peering+transit relationships
> with providers, but only by threat of total revenue loss;
> ie "we currently pay you $x million/year; we want your
> on-net routes as settlement-free routes, and will
> con
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 02:35:37 AM Joel jaeggli wrote:
> In the circumstances where I've seen this are rare... We
> have had transit providers that we used who also peered
> with us on exchange fabrics for v6 that's about it.
Funny, we have something similar :-).
But yes, we've seen this i
On Sunday, December 18, 2011 04:49:46 AM Adam Rothschild
wrote:
> Indeed, the old adage of "once a customer, never a peer"
> could never be wronger.
Socially, "once a customer, then a peer, then a customer
again" is even more interesting yet.
The second instance of "customer" could rise during
18 matches
Mail list logo
