|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lots of non-existant networks
### On Thu, 26 Jun 97 12:02 PDT, [email protected] (Randy Bush) wrote to Abha ### Ahuja <[email protected]> concerning "Re: Lots of non-existant networks ": RB> > http://www.rsng.net/pair/ RB> RB> I am confused as usual. E.g. RB> RB> http://www.rsng.net/rs-views/mae-west/AS2914/grey.html RB> RB> shows RB> RB> GREY 205.238.0.0/18 (4553) 2914 IGP This is fine. As a matter of fact, all AS2914 routes in the RSes should be GREY because you have specified to not have any of your routes redistributed by the RSes. GREY does not necessarily indicate "bad". It just denotes a route that the RS knows about but which has no policy for because the evaluation engine returned a null. The order by which policy filters for each peer of the RS is evaluated as follows. [1] Route Server Peering Request (extended inet-rtr) [2] aut-num registered in the IRR [3] route registered in the IRR In the case of [1] and [2], pairwise reciprocal policy must exist otherwise a null is returned. RB> Yet the registered policy is RB> RB> route: 205.238.0.0/18 RB> descr: RG-TIG-NIC-0 RB> origin: AS2914 RB> remarks: this is non-portable space, no shorter prefixes allowed RB> notify: [email protected] RB> mnt-by: MAINT-RGNET RB> changed: [email protected] 960829 RB> source: RADB Actually that's the registered route. Registered policy (aut-num) is also fine, however, Route Server specific policy (via the import()/export() statements in your peering session as specified via the inet-rtr object you submitted to us) evaluates out to a null list, thus we do not redistribute your routes or distribute routes to you. In the future, we will include "shades" of colors (by comparing the data we already have with additional datasets generated during the policy evaluation phase of the RSes' reconfigs) to more greatly explain and distinguish not just the status but the reason for the state of each route. RB> So what is inconisitent about this? The fault here is ours. Currently we state in our pages that GREY routes are routes that do not match prescribed policy in the IRR. However, in actuality, GREY routes are routes that _either_ do not match policy specific to peering with the RSes _or_ policy registered in the IRR. In the very short future, policy for route servers via the optional extended attributes to the inet-rtr will be merged into the RADB/IRR so the original statement will be true. The list of GREY routes for your network actually is proof that things are consistant with what you want. I suppose in some ways you can view it as an inconsistancy if you expected the RSes to pass your routes on but since you don't then there is no inconsistancy. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <[email protected]> ]======================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | VOX: (313) 763-4907 FAX: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
|