nanog mailing list archives
BBN peering, a technical issue
From: Jerry Scharf <scharf () vix com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:17:49 -0700
Having waded through discussions of policy and definitions of transit, I thought I would try to make something more personally interesting out of this thread. Let's say I have coloA, a colo company who wants to go out of it's way to not screw the big carrier B. In fact, I want to move all the packets destined for B on my network as far as I can and then dump it an the peering point closest to B's final destination. They will do hot potato to me, but I want to do the opposite with them. Since we assume A and B are talking BGP, and B is doing it's job of not polluting the internet routing tables, there is most likely not going to be enough prefixes to make this work stock, MEDs or no. How does B send his POP level routing to A? (I make the assumption that the POP level is the closest correspondence to exchange connections.) Does this change if B is using BGP confederations or not? In this case, leaking is not a problem because A is a transit provider for no one and the filters eat all the routes, more specific or less. Are there any downsides to B giving this information to A? sorry, I'll try to keep the technical/operational issues to a minimum, jerry
Current thread:
- BBN peering, a technical issue Jerry Scharf (Aug 15)
- Re: BBN peering, a technical issue Brian Pettingell (Aug 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: BBN peering, a technical issue Sean M. Doran (Aug 15)
- Re: BBN peering, a technical issue Jerry Scharf (Aug 15)