[31636] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Not so newbie BGP question...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Tue Oct 3 01:49:06 2000
Message-Id: <200010030547.XAA25178@tcb.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:47:28 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I'm not positive but, is it possible to have 65501 prefer 65502_65503
> (using localpref on the 65501<->65502 transit connection) over 65503
> direct routes learned via the regional exchange?
Yep, and you may even be able to do it yourself if they've implemented the
RFC1998 stuff.
> In this situation, all concerned have agreed that since 65501 is a common
> transit provider, it is not expected that they pref routes TO customers or
> customers of customers via the regional exchange.
>
> In a perfect world (someone speak up if you know how to do this!) we could
> do this:
>
> Have 65501 pref regional exchange routes to 65502 and 65503 for traffic
> originating inside of 65501 or from other 65501 transit customers.
Don't need to do that [typically non-standard thing] if you can do this:
> Have 65501 pref the 65501<->65502 transit connection for traffic
> originating from outside their AS or their transit customers.
Again, the RFC1998 stuff, if supported by AS65501, will enable you [AS65502]
to do this yourself.
Of course, the above configurations tend to reduce the value of the Regional
Exchange peering between AS65501 & AS65503, at least when considering the
AS65503 ingress direction. They do still provide AS65503 with egress
flexibility, as well as AS65503-AS65501 [non-transit] interconnectivity in the
event that the AS65502 path becomes unavailable.
-danny
