[j-nsp] Policy Statement Question

[Chris Davies]

I have two current issues which might have one solution.  Our initial 
testing shows that the Juniper reduced average latency about 10ms, so, 
even though our Cisco wasn't showing any real signs of cpu usage, it 
appears (and feels like) the Juniper has made an improvement in 
performance which was a small surprise.

The issue I'm working with now is that we buy transit from two 
providers, a Tier 1 (Cogent) and a Tier 2 (Internap) if you wanted to 
use 'old' terms.  The problem I am running into is that since Internap 
is technically a Tier 2 (they buy transit from Tier 1 providers), only 
25k of the 175k routes have shorter ASPaths to the destination.

Since Internap is only adding 1 router hop and 1 AS Hop, I should ASPad 
on Cogent's side.  That would perhaps level the playing field for 
inbound traffic.

If I understand this right, can someone do a sanity check?  (The 
IOS2junos convertor really made things a mess for me, so, I tried to 
figure out what it needed and stripped out the rest of it)

policy-statement aspad_Cogent {
     term aspad_Cogent {
         then as-path-prepend 11110;
     }
}

Do I need a from condition if I want to unconditionally aspad?

If I understand it, I do not want an accept here since I want the next 
policy statement to also be executed.

Now, on my A-Peer with Cogent (they use multihop), I would set

export [ aspad_Cogent bgp_distributes ]

At that point, I need to

clear bgp neighbor (a-peer's ip) soft

to send the config.

AS Padding on my exports should result in inbound traffic perhaps 
choosing a better path since the ASPath's across Cogent and Internap 
would be a little more balanced.  When I add another provider alongside 
these two, if it is another Tier 1 provider, I would probably need to 
pad their incoming as well.

If someone could give this a quick sanity check, I'd appreciate it.  12 
years of IOS -> Junos has been a bit of a challenge.  :)

Thanks.