Peering Policies and Route Servers

Tue Apr 30 16:50:04 UTC 1996

In message <199604292016.NAA27332 at lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> 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.  :-)
> 
> - paul

Paul,

There is no possibility for blackholing packets.  Blackholing means
advertising a route and then not delivering the packet.

The risk is that a new route or one that changed will not be
advertised until the next config cycle.

Curtis