[28333] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Wed Apr 26 03:06:43 2000
Message-Id: <200004261309.HAA29934@tcb.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 07:09:23 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Intelligent aggregation techniques break MEDs and therefore introduce
a need for advertisement of more-specifics in order to convey the
optimal entry point into an AS.
Then... Poor address allocation/aggregation models and broken IGP
metric -> BGP MED associations, coupled with fear that the peer
network will "leak the more specifics", make questionable the value
of MEDs, especially for "well established TIER 1" providers with
tons of legacy stuff or a really large customer base.
-danny
> or why dont you require both to peer in 4 - 6 places in the US and honor meds
> both ways. This way, each is carrying traffic on their network. Of course the
> bigger providers dont want this as they would lose losts of $$ from all the
> payments they get for 'transit'.
