[28017] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Forrest W. Christian)
Tue Apr 4 19:10:27 2000
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 16:02:12 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@iMach.com>
To: Vijay Gill <wrath@cs.umbc.edu>
Cc: "Henry R. Linneweh" <linneweh@concentric.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.1000404153147.27059G-100000@mailserver-ng.cs.umbc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004041552320.19449-100000@workhorse.iMach.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Vijay Gill wrote:
> exodus still appears to be seeing psinet blocks.
Yes, but a more appropriate look would be:
route-server.exodus.net>sh ip bgp 38.0.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 8111131
Paths: (8 available, best #1)
Not advertised to any peer
1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.41)
209.1.220.41 from 209.1.220.41 (209.1.220.41)
Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate, best
(All the rest have identical paths)
AS 1239 is sprint.
HOWEVER, something is fishy here. I remember from the last exodus go
around that exodus at that point was paying (I believe) the circuit costs
and (definately) NOT doing outbound hot-potato routing (I.E. they were
carrying the traffic cross-country both ways). If this is still their
standard policy, then I'm not sure why psi would pull the plug. Now, if
PSI was paying for the DS3's.... That's a different story.
- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) KD7EHZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com
Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648
----------------------------------------------------------------------
