[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fundamental questions of backbone design
- Subject: Fundamental questions of backbone design
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu)
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 10:55:43 -0400
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:43:49 -0700." <CAEmG1=qT8dGqqD84gAwOvvbzTW+AgiK36CFdUw=EPMQ_rzO4mg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAJ0+aXbB3b-hBKA0oUyRedTAbcO8MWPtn+=kk8GEsZFO544HKg@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAEmG1=qT8dGqqD84gAwOvvbzTW+AgiK36CFdUw=EPMQ_rzO4mg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 12:43:49 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
> Think about it; if network A prepends 10x to network B, and not at all to
> network C; but network B is a free peer of mine, and network C is a transit
> network I pay money to; following the typical convention of "routes learned
> from network B get localpref'd to 5000, routes learned from transit are
> localpref'd at 1000", you'd end up pushing the traffic along the 10x prepended
> pathway.
Thanks. Due to the way our private peering works, the only routes we learn
from our "network B"'s are ones that wouldn't prepend because they want to talk
to us over the peer. So all our prepends show up via our C's. And I was
insuffiently caffienated to consider the case that we'd see prepends on our B
side...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131020/c89c1ffd/attachment.bin>