ANS to CIX Interconnection

Milo S. Medin (NASA ARC NSI Office) medin at
Thu Oct 1 02:24:48 UTC 1992

Mark, the main problem for us is if you don't filter out the 97 some odd
nets out of the AS 1957 routes you send us.  If you are willing to do
that, then we still don't have any new administrative load, and from NSI's
point of view, we're happy.  Did I read your statement right?  If so, we'd
definitely like to take you up on this offer!

You say: "For regionals using default, it isn't possible to prevent traffic
from being sent from the regional to the CIX."  This is true, given a certain
set of assumptions, such as that the ENSS and CNSS's having the same set of
routes.  If the ENSS did not install the 97 nets etc, in it's routing
table, then since it didn't have default, it would generate net unreachable
messages and the traffic wouldn't flow.  Given that I thought this kind of
thing was possible given your implementation and use of IBGP and such,
then this shouldn't be that hard.  Again, please correct me if I'm offbase

You certainly could argue that this sort of thing is necessary for ANS
to serve it's member network's needs for CO+RE service.  The real question
is whether or not it is possible to do this and not increase the administrative
load of non-participating regionals under your NSFNET agreement.  The key
to resolving the latter question is how much flexibility you guys have 
with the import and export of routing information into the routing tables
of the ENSS's, and to be honest, I have only peripheral knowledge of the 
current way routes are sent around inside the T3 system (not because you
guys are being secretive, just that I haven't been following this very
closely due to work load problems).  


More information about the NANOG mailing list