North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Bit-dumping [Was: Re: Peering Policy]

  • From: Robert Bowman
  • Date: Wed Oct 30 15:35:10 1996

I sure hope I know who we are peered with..  then again..  that's what
my as object at the radb is for.

The issue was rather that, you have direct peers, in which ideally a filter
could be setup very easily to match that neighbor statement.  With ra
peerings, you have no neighbor statement to the ips..  a different way
of doing it would be necessary, out-of-sync filters of mac addresses would
need to be setup.. more complex.

By doing so, someone else brought up the point that any transit that was
not including a next-hop-self wouldn't go through..  good.  Pretty 
ridiculous that certain providers of IXP transit charge x dollars a month
for doing nothing but passing routes, NOT passing traffic.  Force them to
at least take the traffic into their router.  It would also alleviate
level 2 issues with providers doing that..  they already need to do it
at pbnap and aads.

>    From: Robert Bowman <[email protected]>
>    BGP peers and bgp peers through the routing arbiter of course.. or you
>    get an intentional level 2 problem again.
> well, you _do_ know who you're peering with right?
>                                         ---Rob

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -