[afnog] How to convince providers to take the sane option....

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 06:24:37 PM Patrick Okui wrote:

> To make matters more interesting some people only peer
> with the route server and not bilaterally, so it's
> difficult to control which peer gets what and they
> decide to either shut down their link or announce only
> aggregates plus very few specifics.

Some exchange points that support route servers also support 
BGP communities that can be sent to the route server to 
signal to whom else you want to route or not. But yes, not 
all exchange points that provide route servers currently 
support this. They all should...

> In this case the way to fix it in the various IXes is
> more interaction with the IX operators as a mediator in
> this case. I don't think the IXes in the region are big
> enough yet that the rules in some regions that would
> forcibly de-peer someone for configuration errors are
> feasible.

Typically, it's not the exchange point's responsibility to 
ensure routing works well (unless, of course, they offer a 
route server service, in which case they could shoulder some 
blame if an aggrieved party dug deep).

If an ISP behaves badly, the other members will de-peer them 
before the exchange point operator has had a chance to brush 
their teeth. Well, at least that's what I'd do :-)...

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/attachments/20140515/d7abbc66/attachment.sig>