On Wednesday, June 01, 2011 06:31:42 AM Peter Rathlev wrote: > I'm seeing this from a customer perspective: Why on earth > should you not respect the more specific routes via the > peering link? > > What if I have a primary connection from AS11 and buy a > backup connection (much lower bandwidth) from you, but > another of your customers is the new Youtube? If you > insist on sending traffic from them down the backup pipe > I bought from you it wouldn't work. I'd have to find > another ISP to buy transit from, and sending it upstream > is at least more expensive than towards a peer, right?
We see this all the time, and our general policy is not to peer with customers. However, if our customer is buying transit from a competitor that's peering with us at the exchange point, we would generally pass that traffic over since the alternative is not preferred (via our own tran$it links). It's a very hard problem to police, as customer routing policies can be as dynamic as your own, if not more. So as long as we're not peering with our customers, we can bend a little. If there are things we can control/fix scalably, we do that. Else, it's better than the alternative, because if a customer doesn't want to announce more specifics to you, they don't want to announce more specifics to you. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
