Hi Martjin, > I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action > community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in
That’s also what I thought but the truth is: there are MANY major transit providers who simply doesn't support any community ... one of the most famous is Hurricane Electric :( Jürgen Jaritsch Head of Network & Infrastructure ANEXIA Internetdienstleistungs GmbH Telefon: +43-5-0556-300 Telefax: +43-5-0556-500 E-Mail: jjarit...@anexia-it.com Web: http://www.anexia-it.com Anschrift Hauptsitz Klagenfurt: Feldkirchnerstraße 140, 9020 Klagenfurt Geschäftsführer: Alexander Windbichler Firmenbuch: FN 289918a | Gerichtsstand: Klagenfurt | UID-Nummer: AT U63216601 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] Im Auftrag von i3D.net - Martijn Schmidt Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Jänner 2016 15:01 An: Andrey Yakovlev <andy.ya...@ya.ru>; Bernd Spiess <bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>; Colton Conor <colton.co...@gmail.com>; Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Betreff: Re: AW: Peering Exchange "We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a different location." That's a fairly normal request. I think nearly every major IP transit provider has built out a BGP action community system to allow their customers to control prefix announcements in the way you're describing it here (e.g. prepending and no-export to certain peers/upstreams). Of course outbound traffic from your customer to "the rest of the world" can not be controlled that way. Best regards, Martijn On 01/27/2016 02:23 AM, Andrey Yakovlev wrote: > Some companies present at some IX with no MLPE simply don't like to be listed > at all, and they prefer to be filtered out from LG servers. It's simply their > police and some big companies do not have a policy which is the same for > everyone peering, say, content provider X will peer with you if you reach > >80Mbps, could not always be true. I have lived a situation where someone > demanded to peer to a DC I happened to manage at that time because his > competitor was peering as well and sharing the same IX, but my company had no > real reason to peer from the NOC perspective and using another port would > just be a waste of time and money with no real advantage other than a barely > better latency. Manager said no thanks, as asked for our peering policy to > become private. Sometimes things just don't have a better explanation and > some people just don't want to accept a different policy to different players. > We also had problems where transit customers said don't want to be exported > to a certain IX point of presence while he wanted to be exported at a > different location. Who ever told him he could pick where we export who? > Nobody. In the end if you are seriously interested to join the IX you will > bet the full list for MLPEs, etc. Otherwise it's just the policy for the club. > > -- > ./andy > > > 26.01.2016, 22:23, "Bernd Spiess" <bernd.spi...@ip-it.com>: >>> Is there a way to browse a route server at >>> certain exchanges, and see who is and is not on the route server? >> Quite many ixp´s do so ... so you can verify yourself what is going on... >> Typical offer of a looking glass: >> You can see the sessions, you can see the amount of prefixes, >> You can see the prefix list and you can see the communities & more >> on these prefixes >> >> E.g.: >> https://lg.nyc.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.dxb.de-cix.net/ >> https://lg.mrs.de-cix.net/ ... and others ... >> https://www.linx.net/pubtools/looking-glass.html >> https://tieatl-server1.telx.com/lg.pl >> etc... >> >> not sure why this should be hidden ... but yes: there are some >> ixp out there who does not show this information or just with a >> login ... >> >> Bernd >> (yes ... I do work for de-cix)
