[179763] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: link avoidance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed May 6 19:47:28 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2lhh18gdi.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 16:42:28 -0700
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The most common place where I have encountered that would involve =
differing AUPs on different links.
For example, if one has a link which is built on an amateur radio layer =
1, one cannot carry commercial, pornographic, encrypted, or certain =
other kinds of traffic on that link.
I believe Internet2 vs. public transit may also pose some such =
requirements.
Other situations I=E2=80=99ve seen involve data privacy concerns and/or =
security zone issues.
Common? Not in my experience.
Usually done with a combination of ACLs, Routing Policy, etc.
Owen
> On May 6, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>=20
> a fellow researcher wants
>=20
>> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
>> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
>> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
>> (that's true right?). Could you give some examples? Perhaps point
>> me to relevant references?
>=20
> if so, why? security? congestion? other? but is it common? and, if
> so, how do you do it?
>=20
> randy
