[c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

[Paul Stewart]

Thanks guys...

We just had a call with MCI on this issue and using one particular provider
proved that it's peering winning over transit with GT... I've also discussed
with GT about communities yesterday and they have no preference options that
we can send to them...  With this provider we can see our prepended routes
taking preference (higher local-pref) specifically because of peering...

Unfortunately our timeline to get this resolved has pretty much expired ...
we've going to have capacity issues shortly if we don't get another provider
in the mix to handle the traffic ... 

Appreciate the input..;)

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared at puck.nether.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:01 PM
To: Pete Templin
Cc: Paul Stewart; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:52:47PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
> Paul Stewart wrote:
> 
> > Anyone provide me clues on what I"m missing here?  GT isn't probably 
> > 1/10th the size of MCI so I anticipated huge traffic levels .... and 
> > I hate prepending whenever I can avoid it... three prepends seems 
> > completely nuts....  and yes, I've spent a lot of time on 
> > route-servers looking for our routes and there always seems to be a 
> > preference towards GT and/or Level(3)....
> 
> GT is likely purchasing transit from various nets.  Those nets are 
> likely applying customer local-preference to GT's advertisements, and 
> are therefore preferring the GT path over MCI, regardless of AS path
length.
> 
> Ask GT what community to use to request peer-level local-preference in 
> their transit providers' networks, and apply that to your announcements.
>   If they don't have one, whine to GT management, and add this 
> requirement to all future purchasing decisions.

	yup.

	this is also my guess.  701 (last i knew) did no such
local-preference changes.  so all thigns being equal (as-path, etc..) they
may exit to a peer instead of directly to you (which is silly, imo).

	I recently created this page of cisco config examples for bgp stuff.
the premises behind this is likely what is getting you.

	http://puck.nether.net/bgp/cisco-config.html

	- Jared

--
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.