|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Network for Sale
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote: > <Disclaimer> > Please don't flame me if I am doing something wrong. > Just tell me how to do it better. > </Disclaimer> I wouldn't do that. > The reason for doing this is simple: > First /20 is in US, second /20 is in VE > and I want to advertise Venezuelan part (and only this) > to some local VE provider in addition to NetRail. > > If I would advertise aggregated /19 to NetRail, > I would receive all traffic for this multihomed /20 > only from second VE provider, as more specific advertisement > would be preferred in route selection process. You are absolutely right, and we do, indeed, have several customers that fit this sort of need. One question, though, do you have a need for full transit from the second VE provider, or is it really more for a peering like relationship? If it's just that VE provider's traffic you are looking to optimize for that /20, you might consider sending the /20 to the VE provider with no-export set and sending the whole /19 to us. It would reduce the number of routes the whole internet has to see. Also, it would probably be better to send NetRail the /20 used in VE, and the whole /19 instead of 2 /20's. It's a very minor enhancement, if any at all, but people don't complain as much about smaller routes being advertised inside of larger routes as compared to obvious aggregations like 2 /20's. Not a big deal, but something to think about. Brandon Ross 404-522-5400 EVP Engineering, NetRail http://www.netrail.net AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Read RFC 2644!
|