|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
> 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|