As we prioritize peers in that order: transit < major peering < underdog peering
We're running into cases (at least 1) where a directly connected network is not preferred, which is sub-optimal.
For example in eqsin:
182.79.252.0/24 *[BGP/170] 13w3d 20:56:25, localpref 270 AS path: 7473 9498 ?, validation-state: unknown > to 103.102.166.145 via ae2.0 [BGP/170] 5w1d 20:38:53, localpref 270, from 103.102.166.130 AS path: 3491 9498 ?, validation-state: unknown > to 103.102.166.141 via ae0.0 [BGP/170] 6w1d 14:52:09, localpref 250, from 27.111.228.122 AS path: 9498 ?, validation-state: unknown > to 27.111.228.40 via xe-0/1/3.0
Airtel is routed through 7473 or 3491 before the direct peering.
We could add a term similar to (untested):
+ from { + as-path-calc-length 1 equal; + } + then { + local-preference 300; + }
So directly connected networks will always be prioritized.
Thoughts?