V peers with X at a number of points. V and X announce the same routes to each other at all these points. V and X are also members of the CIX and are announcing routes to the CIX router. X announces different routes to the CIX router than they announce directly to peer V because Y pays X to specifically announce Y's routes at the CIX. Should V be unhappy with X's inconsistent route announcements? Should X's announcement via the CIX be consistent with their announcements at the other points V and X meet? o yes, because the CIX is a peering point, though router-based (this in itself may be worth a different discussion). o no, because in realty V and X each are paying customers of the CIX, and the CIX is merely announcing their customers' routes to each other. My apologies for opening an operational issue in an inappropriate forum. randy
At 11:41 -0800 3/27/98, Randy Bush wrote:
V peers with X at a number of points. V and X announce the same routes to each other at all these points.
V and X are also members of the CIX and are announcing routes to the CIX router. X announces different routes to the CIX router than they announce directly to peer V because Y pays X to specifically announce Y's routes at the CIX.
Where did Y come from? A Nike commercial? Y ask Y? :-) Personally, I find numbers easier to follow than letters in these examples, don't U? Is the multihomed case W? Slightly more seriously, a little more detail would help. Is Y's space independent from both X and V? I could see V being unhappy if X is advertising a more specific route in V's space, although this could be reasonable if coordinated. Does Y advertise its routes at any points other than through X? Does Y have a distinct ASN? If Y is being advertised as part of X's AS, that seems to be a valid local peering policy.
Should V be unhappy with X's inconsistent route announcements? Should X's announcement via the CIX be consistent with their announcements at the other points V and X meet?
o yes, because the CIX is a peering point, though router-based (this in itself may be worth a different discussion).
o no, because in realty V and X each are paying customers of the CIX, and the CIX is merely announcing their customers' routes to each other.
Is the underlying issue that someone should announce all routes at an exchange point? It sounds as if V is complaining because X is selling transit to Y. Howard
V peers with X at a number of points. V and X announce the same routes to each other at all these points.
V and X are also members of the CIX and are announcing routes to the CIX router. X announces different routes to the CIX router than they announce directly to peer V because Y pays X to specifically announce Y's routes at the CIX.
Should V be unhappy with X's inconsistent route announcements? Should X's announcement via the CIX be consistent with their announcements at the other points V and X meet?
o yes, because the CIX is a peering point, though router-based (this in itself may be worth a different discussion).
o no, because in realty V and X each are paying customers of the CIX, and the CIX is merely announcing their customers' routes to each other.
Please note the evidently subtle point that, in this last case, any peering contract between V and X is not really applicable because this is not a peering relationship. I.e. surely any peering contract between V and X would not place terms or conditions on each other's possible relationship to, for example, MCI. randy
participants (3)
-
Howard C. Berkowitz -
Justin W. Newton -
Randy Bush