North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Network for Sale
- From: Brandon Ross
- Date: Thu Feb 22 14:21:38 2001
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Przemyslaw Karwasiecki wrote:
> Please don't flame me if I am doing something wrong.
> Just tell me how to do it better.
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!