At 11:31 AM -0800 3/13/97, Vince Fuller wrote: >Well, if that "candidate path" is, in fact, one of Randy's customer, then >I would expect him to "cold-potato" route toward it. One would think that >to be part of the service that his customer is purchasing. I think that his internal routing policy and service to his customer is really irrelevant to the question at hand, except insofar as its side-effects affect you. Yup, it isn't my business to care about his internal routing, just to insure that he presents appropriate routing to me (i.e. I care about the functional specification not the design details...) I was merely speculating, perhaps incorrectly, on what might be going wrong so that I don't see what I consider consistant routes. Ah, I finally see the problem. In essence, Randy's (announcement) policy assumes that a destination is either in the set of customer routes OR the set of peer routes, but not both. But in this case we have a destination which is in both. The side-effect ends up making you "cold-potato" route to destinatons in the (customer + peer) intersection. The question is, does it make sense for a destination to be considered to be in both sets? If "peer" is supposed to mean "not-customer" then the answer is probably no, there is (should be) no intersection between "customer" and "not-customer". See your objection above - I really don't care how the routes are handled internally to Randy's net; I just want to see routes for the same prefixes with equal preference (as path length, origin, etc.) at all interconnects. --Vince