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

[John van Oppen]

Group telcom also has a lot of peers (i know i peer with them).   This
will result in their peers often setting a higher local-pref.

As for MCI, I am assuming you mean AS701 if you are in north-america,
right?

john

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Pete Templin
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:53 AM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Routing Problem - MCI/GT/Level3 - Puzzled

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.

pt

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/