North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
- From: Randy Bush
- Date: Thu Mar 13 09:45:40 1997
> My first concern is the loss of information when the route to M isn't
> announced. This causes unfairness when traffic ends up taking the 'long'
> route.
My peer fears that and would like me to fix it. I don't understand how I
can do that in a simple maintainable fashion.
> More than likely your peer is doing the same thing unto you.
Quite possibly, but they won't 'fess up to it. And I don't want to whine at
them unless I know how to constructively address the opportunity (the peer
is a Californian:-).
> The second effect of M's route not being announced happens when traffic is
> blocked because no 'longer' path shows up anywhere else due to different
> route weightings and policy filters across various combinations of ASs. I
> consider this possibility the more serious problem. As the peering mesh
> becomes sparser, expect more missing in action paths, even if the physical
> connections exist the 'best' path may not be announced.
If my peer does not agree that my policy is reasonable and a consequence of
current tools, their reaction may be to reject inconsistent announcements
thereby increasing the likelihood that no path is propagated.
randy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
