North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: more-specifics via IX
- From: David Ulevitch
- Date: Thu Oct 18 17:24:16 2007
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
On 17 Oct 2007, at 20:55, Bradley Urberg Carlson wrote:
Thanks for the suggestions.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
well.. the problem of course is that you pull in the traffic from the
aggregate transit prefix which costs you $$$ but then you offload it
to the customer via a peering link for which you are not being paid
A bigger problem is that my IX peer pays less to my customer for
transit. If my customer notices that transit traffic has been going
around him, he may be grumpy. I prefer happy customers.
1. Your customer/customer's customer is the one doing the broken routing
here not you.. if he wants to be grumpy you should point him in the
direction of the guy who is announcing the bad routes in the first place!
s/broken// and s/bad//
'broken' and 'bad' are all a matter of perspective here.
2. If I'm following this, your peer pays your customer? So you are
peering with your customer's customer? If that was me I would either
depeer them or tell them that you have an issue and need it resolving
urgently or you my depeer them.
It's an MLPA policy based exchange (and probably just using a central
route-server) not bi-lateral peering. De-peering isn't possible here.
It's not an excuse for lack of filters, but as the OP pointed out, the
filters weren't expecting the routes from their customer's customer.