Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

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

Weird BGP Issue

  • From: Jason L. Weisberger
  • Date: Tue Jul 21 23:14:46 1998

Lets say ISP X is peering with Tier One's A and B, as well as buying
transit from them. ISP Y also peers with A and B, in another geographic
region. While all routes for Y are best through A for X, it seems that 75%
of X's routes have a return path of A for Y to reach X and the other 25%,
although annouced in the EXACT SAME MANNER, use B for the return.

ISPs A and B both claim they are distributing all of the routes in the
exact same manner, there is no difference between a route for one of my
/17's and there is for one of my /19's - yet some of my traffic is taking
a different return path than the rest of it. 

Assymetry is cool and all, but this boggles the mind.

Basically:

I announce 207.155.0.0/17 and 209.151.224.0/19 to A and B.
ISP A and B annouce them to both to Y, making no discrimination between
the two routes.
ISP Y takes A for 207.155.0.0/17 and B for 209.151.224.0/19

Why doesn't take the route from A as best is 207.155.0.0/17 is best from A
or why doesn't it choose B over A, as the 209.151.224.0/19 route appears
better.

I'd like to understand this c.p. and not just find an answer that is
"prepend your routes to A and B will always be preferred."

Any ideas?

--
Jason Weisberger
Chief Technology Officer
SoftAware, Inc. - 310/305-0275

...but the wicked shall do wickedly...
--Daniel 12:10






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.