consistent policy != consistent announcements

David Schwartz djls at
Fri Mar 14 17:19:44 UTC 1997

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Alan Barrett wrote:

> The topology we are discussing:
>                     M
>                   /   \
>                  A     B      * Peer link
>                  |     *      | Customer link
>                  RRRRRRR
>           Point1 *     * Point2
>                  VVVVVVV
> M might very well have requested R to consider the paths "R A M" and "R
> B M" to be equally good, and M doesn't care that A is a customer of R
> but B is not a customer of R.  It's perfectly reasonable for R to accede
> to M's wishes in this regard.

	M and A have no direct relationship in this picture so I don't 
see why M would be making requests to R. R should normally be preferring 
customer links to peer links.

	I think it's reasonable of V to demand that if R wishes to treat 
M in such an unusual way, R consider all of M's routes customer routes. 
Otherwise R cannot present a consistent picture to V because R's policy 
is not consistent (preferring a customer route on one side and a peer 
route on the other).


More information about the NANOG mailing list