[155232] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Siegel, David)
Thu Aug 2 09:54:21 2012
From: "Siegel, David" <Dave.Siegel@level3.com>
To: David Reader <david.reader@zeninternet.co.uk>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:53:38 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20120802134129.f759da0e.david.reader@zeninternet.co.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thanks David, you hit the nail on the head on both points.=20
Level 3 made the routing policy change last November, roughly 6 weeks after=
the acquisition of Global Crossing.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: David Reader [mailto:david.reader@zeninternet.co.uk]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 6:41 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:33:38 +0200
Fredy Kuenzler <kuenzler@init7.net> wrote:
> From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy.=20
> It seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549,=20
> regardless of the AS path length. Example (seen from 3356):
>=20
> 3549_13030_[Customer1]_[Customer2]
>=20
> is preferred over
>=20
> 2914_[Customer1]_[Customer2]
>=20
> Considering that both 2914 and 3549 are peers of 3356, and 13030 is a=20
> customer of 3549, 3356 seems to give higher local-pref on the longer=20
> AS-path, likely to increase traffic and revenue of their sister network 3=
549.
Hi Fredy,
Level 3 owns both 3356 and 3549.
They're simply preferring to have their customers pay them, rather than a 3=
rd party.
I don't think it's suprising at all that they're doing it. If, as you think=
, it's only happened recently then what is suprising is that it didn't happ=
en sooner IMO.
d.
