[107422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is the export policy selective under valley-free?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Waites)
Wed Sep 3 13:43:40 2008
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <22598.1220462814@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:42:34 +0200
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 08-09-03 =E0 19:26, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu a =E9crit :
>
> OK, I'm looking at this, and having a *little* trouble buying that =20
> there's
> exactly zero or one p2p links - consider the case where the last =20
> 'c2p' link
> is to provider A, who peers with B but not C, and B peers with both =20=
> A and C,
> and the first p2c link lands at C. Don't you end up with "cp2 p2p =20
> p2p p2c" in
> that case? Or is there a convention saying we compress the A-B and =20=
> B-C
> links into a notational A-C link? Or are we defining A-B or B-C =20
> links as
> being a c2p type instead, even though they're peering and not transit?
If B passes along C's routes to A then that is not (in the model) a =20
peering
relationship. Only your own and your customers' routes get sent to =20
peers not
routes learned from other peers.
So in this case B-C looks like p2c and A-B could be either p2p or c2p.
Cases of partial transit, where B might repeat C's routes to peers but =20=
not
to upstrem providers are not, AFAIK treated in the model.
Cheers,
- -w
- --
William Waites <ww@styx.org>
http://www.irl.styx.org/ +49 30 8894 9942
CD70 0498 8AE4 36EA 1CD7 281C 427A 3F36 2130 E9F5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEUEARECAAYFAki+zIoACgkQQno/NiEw6fUxkwCeOf84XppppZk32YxxQdyiCNgW
gggAlRe2Gg93sS+/HPgscj9+qiVwQ8c=3D
=3DoBAp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
