[AusNOG] HE Routing (not a joke)

[Pieter Berkel]

Matt and Gavin are right: this asymmetric routing seems to only impacts
providers that buy transit from HE in SJC (TPG and Vocus being the two main
ones I've noticed).  It would appear from the below post that HE policy is
to preference transit over peering links (presuming that AS paths for both
are the same length?):

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=81&topicid=
233763&page_no=2#2006292

(Although I'm not quite sure how the reverse might break routing, it might
break their business model?).  I guess it's up to Vocus & TPG to figure out
how fix if it becomes a problem for them.

Edwin: there is some merit to having a routable /48 to experiment with, not
sure if Internode supply that sort of IPv6 subnet to ADSL customers?



On 16 May 2018 at 09:05, Dave Browning <dave at sentrian.com.au> wrote:

> All good if on MegaIX SYD
>
> Tracing route to tserv1.syd1.he.net [216.218.142.50]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
>   1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  vl666.cr01.b1.bne.qld.au.sentrian.net.au
> [103.226.9.138]
>   2    15 ms    16 ms    14 ms  vl3.cr01.s1.syd.nsw.au.sentrian.net.au
> [103.226.9.245]
>   3    13 ms    16 ms    14 ms  as6939.sydney.megaport.com [103.26.68.236]
>   4    12 ms    19 ms    15 ms  tserv1.syd1.he.net [216.218.142.50]
>
> Dave Browning | Network Engineer
> P 1300 791 678
> Level 1, 12 Railway Tce, Milton QLD 4064
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20180516/a7948f77/attachment.html>