Peering Policies and Route Servers
pferguso at cisco.com
Mon Apr 29 20:17:48 UTC 1996
At 12:09 PM 4/29/96 -0700, Ali Marashi wrote:
>I did not mean to imply that an organization was "not allowed" to exchange
>routes with the Route Servers. I was trying to learn why an organization
>"may choose" or "may not choose" to exchange routes with the Route Servers
>rather than use direct peering relationships with other organizations.
>In other words, what is the value for an organization to utilize the Route
>Servers? And if there is value, why is everyone not doing it?
One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are
not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times
during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy.
Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss. :-)
More information about the NANOG