consistent policy != consistent announcements

Vince Fuller vaf at
Thu Mar 13 19:44:34 UTC 1997

    Vince Fuller writes:
    >I can see why you present inconsistant routes to us but I'm not sure that
    >I understand why you'd prefer a customer prefix via a direct connection to
    >them at one point in your network but via a connection to another provider
    >at a different point in your network. That would seem internally
    >inconsistant to me. Is this deliberate behavior to do shortest-exit within
    >your network toward your customer?

    We have some customers that have specifically requested this sort of

Hmm. Do you treat the customer routes received from the other peer to be
"customer" routes, i.e. will you provide transit for them and re-advertise
them to your interconnect peers? If not, then you'll prevent interconnect
peers from using shortest-exit to get to those customer routes, which may
be considered a problem by those peers.


More information about the NANOG mailing list