[members-discuss] An ISP offers to announce our prefix. Is that normal?

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 01:19:05PM +0100, Daniel Ponticello wrote:
> As far as L3 SLA, I never heard of doing BGP causing an SLA problem, can 
> you ask them why is that? If that would be true, nobody would do IP 
> transit anymore ;)

It depends a bit on the specific wording and the definition of "S"ervice
that you have SLAs on.

If one of our customers runs their own BGP with their own BGP policies
and a second BGP uplink, and then complains to us "we cannot reach 
someone else iin the Internet?", and I *can* reach this prefix, debugging
this is much harder than "it does not work from our AS" - because there's
another ISP involved, some unknown-to-us BGP config, it might be route
flap dampening triggered "somewhere".

So, of course we help our customer troubleshoot this, and usually we can
get it fixed.

Can I give a SLA on something I do not fully control?  No...

Now, if you give a L3 SLA on "can reach ISP network" and "ISP network
can reach the world", this is easy, but not helping the end customer who
expects "can reach the whole Internet"...  but, given that they can
easily mess up their own BGP setup ("set community $no-export-to-foo"),
nobody can put hard guarantees on that.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20191112/3e0310a8/attachment.sig>