Better to use communities instead.
On Aug 2, 2012 11:34 AM, "Fredy Kuenzler" wrote:
> From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy. It
> seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549, regardless of the
> AS path length. Example (seen from 3356):
>
> 3549_13030_[
, 2012 6:41 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:33:38 +0200
Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy.
> It seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549,
> rega
It probably should be noted that AS3356's local pref heirarchy is as follows:
Highest: customers of 3356
Next highest: customers of 3549
Lowest: peers
This does not really seem odd at all, and is probably what I would do if I
owned two separate networks that were going to take a long time to mer
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Reader wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:33:38 +0200
Level 3 owns both 3356 and 3549.
They're simply preferring to have their customers pay them, rather than
a 3rd party.
I don't think it's suprising at all that they're doing it. If, as you
think, it's only happened recentl
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:33:38 +0200
Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy. It
> seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549, regardless of the
> AS path length. Example (seen from 3356):
>
> 3549_13030_[Customer1]_[Customer2]
>
From my observation Level3 has recently changed their routing policy. It
seems that 3356 always prefers customer prefixes of 3549, regardless of the
AS path length. Example (seen from 3356):
3549_13030_[Customer1]_[Customer2]
is preferred over
2914_[Customer1]_[Customer2]
Considering that bo
6 matches
Mail list logo
