consistent policy != consistent announcements
djls at gate.net
Fri Mar 14 17:19:44 UTC 1997
On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Alan Barrett wrote:
> The topology we are discussing:
> / \
> A B * Peer link
> | * | Customer link
> Point1 * * Point2
> 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