[5971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bowman)
Wed Oct 30 15:46:05 1996
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
To: rs@bifrost.seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199610302010.PAA01432@bifrost.seastrom.com> from "Robert E. Seastrom" at Oct 30, 96 03:10:06 pm
I sure hope I know who we are peered with.. then again.. that's what
my as object at the radb is for.
The issue was rather that, you have direct peers, in which ideally a filter
could be setup very easily to match that neighbor statement. With ra
peerings, you have no neighbor statement to the ips.. a different way
of doing it would be necessary, out-of-sync filters of mac addresses would
need to be setup.. more complex.
By doing so, someone else brought up the point that any transit that was
not including a next-hop-self wouldn't go through.. good. Pretty
ridiculous that certain providers of IXP transit charge x dollars a month
for doing nothing but passing routes, NOT passing traffic. Force them to
at least take the traffic into their router. It would also alleviate
level 2 issues with providers doing that.. they already need to do it
at pbnap and aads.
rob
>
>
> From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
>
> BGP peers and bgp peers through the routing arbiter of course.. or you
> get an intentional level 2 problem again.
>
> well, you _do_ know who you're peering with right?
>
> ---Rob
>
