+1 on that. Fully support here, and I think a necessity for a growing IX. There are logical business and traffic engineering reasons for this sort of thing, and saves folks from having to go bilateral peer with everyone as the member count grows even higher.
Here are some examples of how other exchanges have implemented this sort of thing.
Equinix: https://ix.equinix.com/ixp/mlpeCommunityInfo
LINX: https://www.linx.net/members/support/route-servers.html
--
Andrew Hoyos
[log in to unmask]
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Steve Howard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I will not be able to attend the MICE UG meeting tonight.
>
> However, I would like to add my thoughts regarding route advertisement
> control using BGP communities.
>
> I am strongly in favor of this capability being added to the route
> servers. Specifically, I'd like to see the ability to block
> advertisement to particular ASes or to prepend just to particular
> AS(es). Perhaps something like Level3, Sprint, and others use:
>
> 65000:XXX - do not announce to AS XXX
> 65001:XXX - prepend one AS to AS XXX
> 65002:XXX - prepend two ASes to AS XXX
> 65003:XXX - prepend three ASes to AS XXX
> 65004:XXX - prepend four ASex to AS XXX
>
> I just had to block one customer's netblock at MICE because Netflix
> traffic shifted in an undesirable manner yesterday. In this case, they
> really just needed to prepend Netflix at MICE, but since that wasn't an
> option they requested that we just block their netblock completely from
> the MICE route servers.
>
> BGP Communities give individual MICE members the ability to control
> their route advertisements to best suit their needs and routing policies
> without having to block the MICE route servers completely.
