North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BBN peering, a technical issue
One thing is for sure ... after catching up on this thread tonight; if the 'Net were to go away tomorrow, about 90% of us could find jobs writing the openinging monologue for Dennis Miller's next HBO show. -brian > 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 > > > -brian
|