Re: Problems with specific routing policies for each exchange point
I was not questioning the function, only the requirement. It seems that if the problem exist between NAPNET and GENUITY, it might exist elsewhere and changing to the specific ASes would be a simple fix.
Are there cases where an AS macro would be really beneficial in the inet-rtr.rs-(in|out) statements?
Well, assuming you use as-macros as they were intended (to simply objects) .. it shouldn't be a problem. The code is obviously broken and Jake is fixing it. I assume that we could create another 2 macros listing every AS individually, but then that'd be more changes that'd we'd have to make every time we pick-up or drop an AS. I've removed AS-NAPNET from the AS-GENUITY macro until the problem is corrected.. -danny
Frankly, it's paranoia that causes me to only put specific ASes in the statements. While I'm willing to let an ISP tell me what ASes they are carrying, I want to know exactly with whom I'm exchanging routes.
I always thought of Randy as the conservative type, but maybe not as much as I. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Hi All! It seems that this situation has brought up a lot of questions about the use of the rs-in and rs-out lines with AS-MACROS. The goal of allowing the AS-MACROS in these lines was the same as there use withing the as-in and as-out lines. It makes things simple and convenient to administer... improved functionality. Our code originally didn't do the error checking for the AS-MACRO looping in the rs-in and rs-out lines (although with RtConfig we caught it in the as-in and as-out lines). We will be making the correct changes in the next few days. If anyone has any more questions regarding these issues, please feel free to contact me (or Jake). Thanks. -abha ;) On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Danny McPherson wrote:
I was not questioning the function, only the requirement. It seems that if the problem exist between NAPNET and GENUITY, it might exist elsewhere and changing to the specific ASes would be a simple fix.
Are there cases where an AS macro would be really beneficial in the inet-rtr.rs-(in|out) statements?
Well, assuming you use as-macros as they were intended (to simply objects) .. it shouldn't be a problem. The code is obviously broken and Jake is fixing it. I assume that we could create another 2 macros listing every AS individually, but then that'd be more changes that'd we'd have to make every time we pick-up or drop an AS.
I've removed AS-NAPNET from the AS-GENUITY macro until the problem is corrected..
-danny
Frankly, it's paranoia that causes me to only put specific ASes in the statements. While I'm willing to let an ISP tell me what ASes they are carrying, I want to know exactly with whom I'm exchanging routes.
I always thought of Randy as the conservative type, but maybe not as much as I. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
__________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- abha ahuja ahuja@merit.edu Merit Network, Inc. 313.764.0294
### On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:55:55 -0700, Danny McPherson <danny@genuity.net> ### wrote to "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> concerning "Re: Problems with ### specific routing policies for each exchange point ": DM> > I was not questioning the function, only the requirement. It seems DM> > that if the problem exist between NAPNET and GENUITY, it might exist DM> > elsewhere and changing to the specific ASes would be a simple fix. DM> > DM> > Are there cases where an AS macro would be really beneficial in the DM> > inet-rtr.rs-(in|out) statements? DM> DM> Well, assuming you use as-macros as they were intended (to simply objects) .. DM> it shouldn't be a problem. The code is obviously broken and Jake is fixing DM> it. I assume that we could create another 2 macros listing every AS DM> individually, but then that'd be more changes that'd we'd have to make every DM> time we pick-up or drop an AS. Well, the code wasn't really broken. It was doing exactly what I wanted it to do. It was my thinking that was broken. I had assumed that no one would ever want to loopback their expansions. DM> I've removed AS-NAPNET from the AS-GENUITY macro until the problem is DM> corrected.. The code has been fixed (many thanks to the author of rtpp, Tom Spindler, for implimenting the changes). You can re-insert the macro. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@Merit.Net> ]======================+ | Systems Research Programmer, IE Group /| /|[~|)|~|~ N E T W O R K | | VOX: (313) 763-4907 FAX: (313) 747-3185 / |/ |[_|\| | Incorporated | +==[ Suite C2122, Bldg. 1 4251 Plymouth Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2785 ]==*/
participants (3)
-
Abha Ahuja -
Danny McPherson -
Jake Khuon