[AusNOG] Pipe/Equinix Peering Costs

[Andrew Jones]

The issue is that even if they accept a customer's routes on a peering 
link, and localpref it below everything else, a more specific route will 
still win. So if a customer advertises a /23 to their transit provider, 
but the same block as two /24 announcements to the IX (that their 
transit provider also peers with), the customer could essentially 
"steal" transit, having it come in through the comparatively cheap 
peering link, and yet still costing their transit provider.


On 03.05.2013 19:12, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
> You'd think though in Australia it'd be a lot more obvious the
> financial penalties for having said filtering. In this case TPG is
> having to pay a lot vs a little (or being paid in the original
> situation). Surely it'd be better for them to accept the customer
> routes at a lower priority, it isn't like its they'd have performance
> issues (their routers are handling 1/10th the traffic for their
> size/revenue compared to US/EU counterparts)?
>
> Also, I think you mean transit-free (tier1?) included? By definition
> transit-free wouldn't/couldn't be peering with customers?
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Cameron Daniel <cdaniel at nurve.com.au> 
> wrote:
>
>> It's not uncommon for transit networks to filter customer routes on 
>> all peering links, whether the customer happens to be advertising the 
>> route on the customer<->provider session at the time or not. I think 
>> you'll find most providers do that, transit-free networks excluded.
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog