North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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.

Okay but:

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.