other routing anomalies
Steven L. Johnson
steve at barstool.com
Wed Apr 17 16:26:44 UTC 1996
Avi Freedman writes:
> Ugh, I replied privately to Gordon; didn't realize he sent it to nanog :)
> JVNC said to him in an earlier message that they were currently defaulting
> into MCI and the reason that they were sending outgoing data to netaxs through
> the CIX was because *any* route that showed up at the CIX would be taken
> since they were just defaulting into MCI.
I think that Gordon assumed that I was a GES/JvNCnet employee. In any
case, either you or Gordon understood wrong. JvNCnet takes partial
routes from CIX. If they took full routes from CIX and only default
from MCI, all traffic would go to CIX. What you want is to get the
AS for netaxs (and/or hlc?) put into the as path filter list that JvNCnet
uses in their router that peers with CIX. Suggest you contact them directly
if you care.
> I don't know why they were doing it - perhaps they were hit too hard by MCI
> backbone problems (which should??? be resolved shortly w/ OC3).
Can you say 16M AGS+? And of course not updating the filters to reflect
reality as more people have peered at CIX.
> Anyway, I don't know what kind of routes JVNC uses or what kind of routing
> they're doing, but I'm hoping they take full routes from MCI again shortly.
I don't think they ever have.
More information about the NANOG