Sounds to me like Policy Based Routing is starting to evolve in a particularly interesting way. -alan ......... Sean Donelan is rumored to have said: ] ] Does anyone know what's going on in Canada? ] ] In the last couple of weeks fONOROLA/iStar.net changed how they ] announce aggregated networks. Now fONOROLA is sending some more ] specific network announcements for multi-homed networks in 198.53.0.0 ] with a "no-export" BGP community to MCI, and ANS. ] ] As long as you only connect with MCI or ANS, and use their IGP, ] things look pretty typical because the more specifics are carried ] internally. But if you use BGP, the no-export means any peers ] with MCI won't see the more specific network announcement from MCI. ] ] The problem shows up when you see routes from Sprintlink. A few ] Canadian network connect through Sprint/Canada as well as fONOROLA. ] The more specific networks from 198.53 are announced by Sprintlink. ] Since the no-export suppressed the more specific announcement to ] MCI BGP peers, the traffic for those Canadian sites follows the ] more specific network announcement and heads for Sprint. ] ] I understand the BGP mechanics are working as specified, so it ] isn't "broken" per se. But I'm just wondering if Canadian sites ] really expect traffic to go via Stockton, California? ] ] I haven't been able to reach anyone at fONOROLA/Istar. I was just ] wondering if any other North American network operators had heard ] what was supposed to happen last month when fONOROLA made these ] changes. ] -- ] Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO ] Affiliation given for identification not representation ] ] ]