On 31-Oct-2005, at 17:49, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Which leaves the question of why F, and now K, appear to be trying to do it.
F's covering prefix, 192.5.5.0/24, is advertised to peers of F-root local nodes with NO_EXPORT. 192.5.5.0/24 is advertised to peers of AS 3557 without NO_EXPORT. A shorter prefix, 192.5.4.0/23, is also advertised without NO_EXPORT from AS 3557. In the cases where local nodes of F advertise 192.5.5.0/24 with NO_EXPORT to ASes which also provide transit for 3557, we have taken care to ensure that local policy in those ASes causes the 3557 route (a customer route) always to be selected in preference to that received from the local node (a peer route). In these cases the local node provides local backup service. A description of F's deployment strategy can be found in <http:// www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.html>. Joe