[AusNOG] Small Pipe BNE/Agile issue
macca at vocus.com.au
Sun Jun 15 17:39:25 EST 2008
> Naturally you want me to send traffic to you via peering rather than
> transit but at the end of the day that's not your decision to make.
> I'm sending the traffic and I'll apply my policy.
This one's been bugging me all day. I tried to stay out of it - but I gotta
get my hands dirty :)
The commercial reality is that we all pay for traffic in both directions and
since most ISPs choke more on inbound traffic than outbound due to the
asymmetric nature of the services they offer, they're inclined to harness
the awesome powers of the BGP path selection algorithm to massage their
inbound traffic flow. This is something we've all had to do in the past to
balance traffic on multiple transit links that may be of different shapes
and sizes, but we're stuck with for commercial reasons (you mean I can't
cancel this STM-1 for another year?! Etc).
It also really becomes necessary when dealing with transit players who don't
peer and you have expensive "backup" links to. No matter how many pre-pends
you stick on that /23, you're getting all their local traffic and any
traffic of their transit customers.
If someone has a better solution to this, please educate away!
From: ausnog-bounces at ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at ausnog.net] On Behalf
Of David J. Hughes
Sent: Sunday, 15 June 2008 10:30 AM
To: James Spenceley
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Small Pipe BNE/Agile issue
Personally, I feel that increasing the impact your AS has on my
routing table in an attempt to subvert my routing policy and force me
to send my traffic in a way you want to dictate is anti-social.
Naturally you want me to send traffic to you via peering rather than
transit but at the end of the day that's not your decision to make.
I'm sending the traffic and I'll apply my policy. Of course I want to
use the peering path as well and I'll local-pref according to my
policy - not your policy.
If someone is advertising a /20 in the public table and then tries to
shove 32 /25's at me just because we are at an MLPA IX then I will
call them anti-social :) It'll probably cost them money too when I
drop those routes and send our content back to them via their transit
As for there being no written rules, you are spot on. However, nobody
has ever received a portable allocation that's smaller than a /24 so
why would I expect to see such an announcement at their AS boundary?
I really don't want to see the contents of their IGP.
On 14/06/2008, at 11:57 PM, James Spenceley wrote:
> I don't see it as anti-social, it's not effecting anyone globally
> and is generally getting traffic on better / more direct paths.
> Where is the problem ?
> As for de-aggregating past a /24, I've never seen a written rule
> that a /24 is ok to distribute and a /25 isn't, globally nothing
> works past a /24, that's generally accepted but peering is a bi-
> lateral relationship (even with an MLPA). If using /25 or greater
> has a required effect there is no reason not to use it but likewise
> no requirement to accept it.
> On 14/06/2008, at 10:35 PM, David J. Hughes wrote:
>> Hey MMC,
>>> PIPE allow people to advertise longer than /24s.
>> Ok, I wasn't aware of that as we don't accept them. Call us fussy,
>> but we also don't accept default from an IX :-).
>> May I suggest to any PIPE or Equinix peering participants that expect
>> WebCentral / MelbourneIT content to be delivered via the IX that they
>> do not deaggregate past a /24 for TE purposes. Guys, if the same
>> prefix is visible via peering or transit you'd be on the mark if you
>> expect us to use a peering connection wherever possible. That's our
>> decision and that's what local-pref is for. Gross deaggregation by
>> the origin AS is not a reliable solution and is anti-social behviour.
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at ausnog.net
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at ausnog.net
More information about the AusNOG