[137754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Fri Feb 18 16:28:40 2011
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=zAa4T4zeTiDx3nUwdJY2WL0TSRx3ciBsTB5nS@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:28:01 -0500
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>,
"Yaoqing\(Joey\) Liu" <joey.liuyq@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2011-02-18, at 14:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> <mksmith@adhost.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Sorry for the misfire on my last email. The 206.81.80.0/23 network =
is assigned to the SIX from ARIN. In general, we don't want
>> people to announce that space to the DFZ, so the three providers =
listed above are not filtering their announcements properly. It is, as
>> others have said, a good idea to announce the exchange block to your =
customers, but not out to the DFZ.
>=20
> why is it a good idea to send this to your customers? the next-hop
> info is surely only useful to your local network? done right it's even
> only relevant to the IX connected router, right? it seems wholely
> unusful to your customers. (to me at least)
Well, except for the reason that Leo mentioned.
The NEXT_HOP in the exchange point subnet will not make it to the =
customer router. It's not a transitive attribute. The customer will see =
a NEXT_HOP corresponding to the provider router (or whatever they decide =
to re-write it as). See RFC 4271 section 5.1.3.
Joe=
