Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements

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 arrangement. 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. --Vince

Vince Fuller writes:
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
Yes.
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.
Agreed. -Hank
participants (2)
-
Henry Kilmer
-
Vince Fuller