[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

local_preference for transit traffic?

Subject: local_preference for transit traffic?
From: jsw at inconcepts.biz (Jeff Wheeler)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:35:55 -0500
In-reply-to: <CABO8Q6RoUu-au6a5nYx4ZygrpS_r=RsxDU+7hew3BXkLY7KXsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABO8Q6ThEL_rHYxoJ2bg8fKsfa3uPKS-EVBgu1EPu9ic73_rrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPWAtbLg9WVC2xxhYbk55gsV88_ivzj3YDtDQV8Ftw_-W1k7cA@mail.gmail.com> <CABO8Q6RoUu-au6a5nYx4ZygrpS_r=RsxDU+7hew3BXkLY7KXsw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Keegan Holley
<keegan.holley at sungard.com> wrote:
> I always assumed that taking in more traffic was a bad thing.? I've heard
> about one sided peering agreements where one side is sending more traffic
> than the other needs them to transport. Am I missing something?? Would this
> cause a shift in their favor allowing them to offload more customer traffic
> to their peers without complaint?

Well, if Level3 wanted less ingress traffic, they would probably stop
this practice.  I would imagine they thought about it carefully.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator? /? Innovative Network Concepts

References:
- local_preference for transit traffic?
  - From: keegan.holley at sungard.com (Keegan Holley)
- local_preference for transit traffic?
  - From: jsw at inconcepts.biz (Jeff Wheeler)
- local_preference for transit traffic?
  - From: keegan.holley at sungard.com (Keegan Holley)

Prev by Date: De-bogon not possible via arin policy.
Next by Date: Coloc at Equinix Singapor
Previous by thread: local_preference for transit traffic?
Next by thread: local_preference for transit traffic?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread