IPv6 BGP TE (was Couldflare routing problems)

Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com Jean-Francois.TremblayING at videotron.com
Thu Jun 21 16:24:38 CEST 2012

Hi Chris. 

> I specifically said I don't see a valid use case for *globally* 
> more specifics. Locally is a different case: 
> Using more specifics for TE is fine towards your upstreams or direct
> peers, where you can still negotiate acceptance of more specific
> announcements for this purpose.

Glad to see your local policies could be different. This will at least 
for your clients to load-balance. 

What about a client doing load-balacing between multiple providers?  Would 
for example, carry longer prefixes from your clients one or multiple peers 
It boils down to what do you consider local vs global. You'd probably have 
put a limit on the AS path length of the longer prefixes. 

I guess this all can be negotiated with transit and peers, but it's good
to share views on this so that we end up with consistent policies 
wherever that's possible. 


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list