North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: consistency and cix
At 11:41 -0800 3/27/98, Randy Bush wrote: >V peers with X at a number of points. V and X announce the same routes >to each other at all these points. > >V and X are also members of the CIX and are announcing routes to the CIX >router. X announces different routes to the CIX router than they >announce directly to peer V because Y pays X to specifically announce >Y's routes at the CIX. Where did Y come from? A Nike commercial? Y ask Y? :-) Personally, I find numbers easier to follow than letters in these examples, don't U? Is the multihomed case W? Slightly more seriously, a little more detail would help. Is Y's space independent from both X and V? I could see V being unhappy if X is advertising a more specific route in V's space, although this could be reasonable if coordinated. Does Y advertise its routes at any points other than through X? Does Y have a distinct ASN? If Y is being advertised as part of X's AS, that seems to be a valid local peering policy. > >Should V be unhappy with X's inconsistent route announcements? Should >X's announcement via the CIX be consistent with their announcements at >the other points V and X meet? > > o yes, because the CIX is a peering point, though router-based (this > in itself may be worth a different discussion). > > o no, because in realty V and X each are paying customers of the CIX, > and the CIX is merely announcing their customers' routes to each > other. > Is the underlying issue that someone should announce all routes at an exchange point? It sounds as if V is complaining because X is selling transit to Y. Howard
|