Hi, On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:31:42AM +0200, Peter Rathlev wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 20:31 +0200, vince anton wrote: > > it surprises me that some people seem to be ok with passing transit traffic > > over a peering link. I dont understand why you would want to do this, as to > > me this seems abuse or misconfiguration (possibly not intentional), and > > potentially very expensive, or loss of revenue. > > I'm seeing this from a customer perspective: Why on earth should you not > respect the more specific routes via the peering link?
Because it creates a cost deficit at your AS.
If the customer is really creative, they announce the more specifics via
the peering link *only* (but not to "the world"). So all the traffic is
attracted by the aggregate from your upstreams into your AS, and there the
packets get redirected by the more-specifics to the peering links.
So you pay for your upstreams, and your peer gets the money from the
customer...
> 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.
Different issue. If it's "just the backup" (e.g. "use community to set
local-pref 70"), it won't be propagated world wide, and won't attract
costly upstream traffic.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpzEcP3FazPV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
