[8184] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Barrett)
Sat Mar 15 06:37:12 1997
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 13:22:02 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com>
To: "Alex.Bligh" <amb@xara.net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199703142222.WAA27836@diamond.xara.net>
> Is there any *customer-led* reason why one might not want to prefer
> customer routes over peer routes? (i.e. not "it saves me doing some
> backhaul as I can dump the traffic off to the customers other
> provider").
Yes. Suppose that I am "M", and I have two providers "A" and "B". The
links M/A and M/B are expensive international links, much lower bandwidth
than I would like, and prone to congestion. Further suppose that A is a
customer of R, and B is a peer of R. For load balancing reasons, I would
like R to send some of my traffic via A and some via B. Since I pay A and
B for transit, and A pays R for transit, and A and B both agree to play
along with my desire to load balance, it's reasonable for us to ask R to
do this. From R's point of view, their customer A and their indirect
customer M have asked them to treat peer routes (via B) and customer
routes (via A) to destinations in M as being equivalent.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
