[c-nsp] BGP peer/customer routes

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:31:42AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:31 +0200, vince anton wrote:
> > it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic
> > over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to
> > me this seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not intentional), and
> > potentially very expensive, or loss of revenue.
> 
> I'm seeing this from a customer perspective: Why on earth should you not
> respect the more specific routes via the peering link?

Because it creates a cost deficit at your AS.

If the customer is really creative, they announce the more specifics via
the peering link *only* (but not to "the world").  So all the traffic is
attracted by the aggregate from your upstreams into your AS, and there the 
packets get redirected by the more-specifics to the peering links.

So you pay for your upstreams, and your peer gets the money from the 
customer...


> What if I have a primary connection from AS11 and buy a backup
> connection (much lower bandwidth) from you, but another of your
> customers is the new Youtube? If you insist on sending traffic from them
> down the backup pipe I bought from you it wouldn't work. 

Different issue.  If it's "just the backup" (e.g. "use community to set
local-pref 70"), it won't be propagated world wide, and won't attract
costly upstream traffic.

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
                                                           //www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20110601/64ff2109/attachment.pgp>