North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Alan Barrett wrote: > The topology we are discussing: > > M > / \ > A B * Peer link > | * | Customer link > RRRRRRR > Point1 * * Point2 > VVVVVVV > > M might very well have requested R to consider the paths "R A M" and "R > B M" to be equally good, and M doesn't care that A is a customer of R > but B is not a customer of R. It's perfectly reasonable for R to accede > to M's wishes in this regard. M and A have no direct relationship in this picture so I don't see why M would be making requests to R. R should normally be preferring customer links to peer links. I think it's reasonable of V to demand that if R wishes to treat M in such an unusual way, R consider all of M's routes customer routes. Otherwise R cannot present a consistent picture to V because R's policy is not consistent (preferring a customer route on one side and a peer route on the other). DS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|