[c-nsp] BGP peering visibility

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:42:52AM +0000, Nick Cutting wrote:
> Thanks Gert - I'll be switching back to the primary ISP tonight - and am awaiting information from the secondary.
> 
> I am really interested in how all the ISP's put their routing policies together - is there some or best practice system they work worth ?

I think this is very very individual...  what we have has been built
over the years, with quite a bit of trying out things and then doing
things differently.  Since every network is different, requirements
differ, and that reflects into routing policies.

We try to mostly let BGP do its job, that is, "not too much fiddling
with local-pref, etc." - because when you start fiddling, you'll have
a safe job adjusting stuff again and again that BGP would nicely do
on its own otherwise.  Most important bit is proper ingress and
egress filtern ("accept only what you know the customer is allowed
to advertise" and "announce only what the BGP communities tell you
should be announced *there*").

>  It is very difficult to find information outside of customer communities.  As a person who is on the outside looking in - I really want to know more about how the routing polices are built, with respect to customer and peers.
> Even the CCIE service provider study material doesn't really talk about real world implementations of these polices - more just how each individual technology works.

Your upstreams might be willing to share what they have...

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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 291 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20151104/44b2d675/attachment.sig>