[afnog] Concern about gTLD servers

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On Mar 26, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 20/03/2012 10:16, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
>> ##################### local-route-server.is.co.za #####################
>> 
>> local-route-server>sh ip bgp 192.33.14.30
>> BGP routing table entry for 192.33.14.0/24, version 361750863
>> Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
>> Flag: 0x820
>> Not advertised to any peer
>> 3741 26415 26415, (aggregated by 26415 196.34.130.2)
>> 168.209.255.8 from 168.209.255.8 (168.209.255.245)
>> Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, atomic-aggregate, best
>> local-route-server>ping 192.33.14.30
>> 
>> Type escape sequence to abort.
>> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.33.14.30, timeout is 2 seconds:
>> !!!!!
>> Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/2/4 ms
> 
> That's very interesting. It would appear that somewhere between that instance and me there is someone who has failed to make proper use of BGP local-preference...


what might be even more interesting to you, is that this is/was not accidental.

many years ago, it was the policy of your unnamed provider, *not* to accept locally originated (presumed on-shore, anycast) prefixes.[*]
at least, this is what we were told, at $empoyer-1, when we pointed out the anomaly.
hopefully, you can make a more impassioned appeal as a clueful customer...

you get what you pay for.  and, as i always say:  vote with your wallet.

--n.

* yes, it's silly.  i can't comment on their policy.