nanog mailing list archives
Re: Networks ignoring prepends?
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:01:14 -0500
As I already explained, neither the primary nor any of the backup providers directly peer with Centurylink, thus have no communities for controlling announcements to Centurylink.
No, but they do have an option to not announce to 47787. https://docs.freerangecloud.com/en/bgp/communities 53356:19014 would deny to 47787 , which would seem to be the 'problematic' intermediate ASN in your case, You could try that and see what other upstream paths are taken , and see if that gets you over an upstream that lines up more with your performance expectations. Otherwise, you either have to deal with more specifics, or try to get better connected to 3356 some other way. 3356 isn't doing anything wrong here, as much as you seem to want to believe that to be true. This is all pretty standard customer / peer preference handling. On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 7:26 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:16 PM Alex Le Heux <alexlh () funk org> wrote:On Jan 23, 2024, at 00:43, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote: Every packet has two customers: the one sending it and the one receiving it. 3356 is providing a service to its customers. ALL of its customers. Not just 47787. Sending the packet an extra 5,000 miles harms every one of 3356's customers -except for- 47787. In this case, I am the customer on both ends. 3356's choice to route my packet via 47787 serves me poorly.Packets don't have customers, ISPs do. And in this case you're not acustomer of the ISP making the routing decision Incorrect. I am a customer of 3356. A residential customer, not a BGP customer. I'm paying them to route my packets too, and they're routing them poorly. Also incorrect: every packet in your network is linked to either one or two customers. Never more. Never less. Routing my packet via 47787 in this case serves neither of us: my Internet access is severely degraded and 47787 is charged money for a packet they need not have handled. Charging your customers to make their service worse doesn't seem like a good business model to me, but maybe that's why I'm not a CEO.Fact is that all prepending does it provide a vague hint to other networks about what you would like them to do.Until they tamper with it using localpref, BGP's default behavior with prepends does exactly the right thing, at least in my situation. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends?, (continued)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Nick Hilliard (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? James Jun (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Alex Le Heux (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Alex Le Heux (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Tom Beecher (Jan 22)
- RE: Networks ignoring prepends? Jeff Behrns via NANOG (Jan 22)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Tom Beecher (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Darrel Lewis (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Robert Raszuk (Jan 24)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Alex Le Heux (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Tom Beecher (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Jay Borkenhagen (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? William Herrin (Jan 23)
- Re: Networks ignoring prepends? Chris Adams (Jan 23)