nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering + Transit Circuits
From: Pshem Kowalczyk <pshem.k () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:00:35 +0000
It's actually quite easy. Provider1 is present at Exchange1 and Exchange2, so is Provider2. Provider2 doesn't want to pay for the traffic between Exchange1 and Exchange2, so it points a static route for all prefixes it has in Exchange2 via Provider1's IP address in Exchange1 and does the same in Exchange2. Provider1's router receives traffic, checks where it should go (Exchange2) and it forwards the traffic. So the traffic flows like this: Provider2 (Exchange1) -> Provider1 -> (Exchange2) Provider2, all due to static routes. kind regards Pshem On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 at 10:38 Faisal Imtiaz <faisal () snappytelecom net> wrote:
Let me start backwards... To me 'peering' is sharing internal routes and downstream customer routes,and not external ones. IP transit is all of the external routes including internal routes & downstream customer routes Having said that..... if one is control of what IP Prefixes get advertised to whom... how exactly someone (peers) 'steal' transit ? (If one is not managing the filters well then yes it is possible, but that would be a configuration error ?) Maybe I am naive, to my Peering routes (relationships) are a subset of IP Transit Routes (relationships) Based on above belief... Then Item # 3, becomes the choice of the OP.... where one can make one of two starting assumptions... We will trust everything coming in and change what we don't like... or We will not trust anything coming in, and change (accept) what we like. Items # 1 & 2, would be a function of network design, technical requirements (maintenance window) etc etc.. easier to deal with a distributed edge vs all in one when one has to bring anything down for any reason.. I am open to learning and being corrected if any of the above is wrong ! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message -----From: "Tim Durack" <tdurack () gmail com> To: cisco-nsp () puck nether net, "nanog list" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:29:31 AM Subject: Peering + Transit CircuitsQuestion: What is the preferred practice for separating peering andtransitcircuits? 1. Terminate peering and transit on separate routers. 2. Terminate peering and transit circuits in separate VRFs. 3. QoS/QPPB (https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog42/presentations/DavidSmith-PeeringPolicyEnforcement.pdf) 4. Don't worry about peers stealing transit. 5. What is peering? Your comments are appreciated. -- Tim:>
Current thread:
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits, (continued)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Tim Durack (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Nick Hilliard (Aug 19)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 18)
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Message not available
- Re: [c-nsp] Peering + Transit Circuits Mark Tinka (Aug 25)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits William Herrin (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Pshem Kowalczyk (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits John Osmon (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Bob Evans (Aug 18)
- Re: Peering + Transit Circuits Faisal Imtiaz (Aug 18)