Re: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy

2012-08-02 Thread Adrian M
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_[

RE: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy

2012-08-02 Thread Siegel, David
, 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

RE: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy

2012-08-02 Thread John van Oppen
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

Re: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy

2012-08-02 Thread Justin M. Streiner
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

Re: Level3 (3356/3549) changes routing policy

2012-08-02 Thread David Reader
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] >