North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BBN peering, a technical issue
- From: Brian Pettingell
- Date: Thu Aug 20 03:03:00 1998
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.
> Having waded through discussions of policy and definitions of transit, I
> thought I would try to make something more personally interesting out of this
> 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,