Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers

  • To: Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers
  • From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 13:10:38 +0900
  • Cc: "'David R. Conrad'" <davidc at apnic dot net>, "'Miguel A.L. Paraz'" <map at iphil dot net>, "'apops at apnic dot net'" <apops at apnic dot net>
  • In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 May 1997 07:44:04 +0800." <01BC5608.5BEB36C0 at bgreene-pc dot cisco dot com>
  • Sender:
    • Barry,
      >> One additional point -- as I'm sure you all know by now, some
      >> providers filter out long prefixes, thus in the scenario Barry
      >> describes above, the more specific /22 advertised by ISP B at the IXP
      >> can get filtered, thus you can end up with sub-optimal routing.
      >True, but we've yet to see this at a domestic IX in Asia Pacific. 
      I don't know of an IX anywhere on the planet that implements filtering
      (CIX did, but not prefix length filtering and they don't anymore), do
      >If it is 
      >done, then the ISP doing the filtering could be persuaded to punch a hole 
      >in the filter for the sake of domestic connectivity.
      Right.  The filters I'm talking about are on the remote ISP side (the
      Sprints, Digexes, BBN Planet's of the world).  In such cases, the ISP
      in PH would need to negotiate with those remote ISPs to modify their
      configurations/filtering policies and there are lots of fun directions
      such negotiations could take (e.g., "how much is it worth to you?").
      Better solution would likely either not multi-home and use your
      provider's space or get a provider independent block and renumber into
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net