North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
Vince Fuller wrote: > >From our point of view, we aren't seeing any route which can be used for > shortest-exit to your multi-homed customers. Why? Probably because we don't > peer with the other ISP which serves those customers. The result is that we > have to backhaul traffic to other interconnect points, something which is > expensive for us and inconsistant with our normal peering policy. > > I can see why you present inconsistant routes to us but I'm not sure that I > understand why you'd prefer a customer prefix via a direct connection to them > at one point in your network but via a connection to another provider at a > different point in your network. That would seem internally inconsistant to > me. Is this deliberate behavior to do shortest-exit within your network toward > your customer? > > --Vince > The scenario I can think where this would happen is using BGP route-reflectors internally to reduce the intermeshing requirements for IBGP peers. Since a route-reflector only propagates the best route, it is quite easy to get different as-paths in different parts of the network. Not an ideal situation, to be sure, but "correcting" this behaviour is more than a simple fix. +j -- Jeff Rizzo http://boogers.sf.ca.us/~riz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|