Problems with specific routing policies for each exchange point

Kevin Oberman oberman at
Fri Oct 31 16:10:58 UTC 1997

> From: "Jake Khuon" <khuon at Merit.Net>
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 23:45:25 -0500
> Sender: owner-nanog at
> ### On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:02:02 -0800, mark at (Mark Tripod) wrote
> ### to <nanog at Merit.Net> concerning "Problems with specific routing policies
> ### for each exchange point":
> MT> I ran in to a little problem yesterday with my peering sessions wih the
> MT> various route servers around the country. The problem was that I was not
> MT> receiving routes from particular ASNs anymore. With a little help from Jake
> MT> at Merit we were able to pinpoint the problem in my rs-in configuration. It
> MT> seems that I was importing two different AS macros that each referenced the
> MT> other (AS-GENUITY and AS-NAPNET). This created a loop in the macro parser
> MT> on the route server which in turn nullified my routing policy.
> I would reccommend anyone referencing any of those two macros in their rs-in
> or rs-out to discontinue doing so at least until which time I can throw in a
> bugfix to handle looping expansions.  Currently the expansion routine in the
> preprocessor will reach a depth limit and then spit out an error which gets
> interpretted by the main routine as a bogus expansion.  This will nullify
> that import.

I must admit that I do not see the reason for using AS macros in rs-in
and rs-out statements. As far as I know these statements merely
control which AS peers will receive your routes from the route server
and vice-versa. Since these are direct peers with the route server, I
can't see the need to put anything other than specific AS numbers into
the rs-in and rs-out lines.

Am I missing something obvious?
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at			Phone: +1 510 486-8634

More information about the NANOG mailing list