[as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes

[Aleksi Suhonen]

Hello,

On 03/11/2018 20:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>> If this ISP cannot understand what AS112 is from the RFC, there's a
>> good chance they won't handle the AS112 prefixes correctly.
> 
> What special handling do AS112 prefixes need compared to any other 
> prefix from the perspective of a transit provider?

IMO, the transit should prefer IGP metric over AS Path length and 
customer relationship. This may be impossible with current existing 
technology, but this is still what I think. /: - )

I wonder if we should recommend that all AS112 announcements were tagged 
with "tier 1 local preference communities" for setting the local 
preference to be the same as that of peered routes. So even if they are 
accidentally leaked to transits, they would keep routing reasonable.

I fished a few such communities from: https://onestep.net/communities/

1299:150 2914:470 1273:80 7018:80

While I was fishing, I noticed that some of them don't seem to have a 
community for matching peers exactly. I suppose in those cases the 
community that is just below peer local preference should be picked...

On 02/11/2018 19:32, Grant Taylor wrote:
 > Would it be worth while to originate the AS112 prefixes to all peers
 > willing to accept it with the don't (re)export attribute?  That way
 > directly connected peers (that accept the advertisement) will benefit.
 > But people further away won't be drawn towards your AS112 instance?

I consider using no-export for AS112 harmful:

When the receiving AS has transit customers, they won't receive the 
prefix. If those transit customers operate a default-free network, they 
will blackhole the traffic.


> _______________________________________________
> as112-ops mailing list
> as112-ops at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/as112-ops

This thing (along with the subject line modification) breaks DKIM 
signatures. I wouldn't mind if they were removed, because I'm savvy 
enough to know I'm on the mailing list.

Mailman also has the option setting for removing DKIM signatures that it 
has broken. I would condone using that setting on this list as well.

Nit picking as always,

-- 
	Aleksi Suhonen / TREX