[2590] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: other routing anomalies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Wed Apr 17 13:12:02 1996
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: steve@barstool.com (Steven L. Johnson)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:04:16 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pete@dsw.com, gcook@tigger.jvnc.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199604171626.MAA30188@johnson.jvnc.net> from "Steven L. Johnson" at Apr 17, 96 12:26:44 pm
> Avi Freedman writes:
> I think that Gordon assumed that I was a GES/JvNCnet employee. In any
> case, either you or Gordon understood wrong. JvNCnet takes partial
> routes from CIX. If they took full routes from CIX and only default
> from MCI, all traffic would go to CIX. What you want is to get the
> AS for netaxs (and/or hlc?) put into the as path filter list that JvNCnet
> uses in their router that peers with CIX. Suggest you contact them directly
> if you care.
Yes, we want to get them to just not hear _4969_ at the CIX...
> > I don't know why they were doing it - perhaps they were hit too hard by MCI
> > backbone problems (which should??? be resolved shortly w/ OC3).
>
> Can you say 16M AGS+? And of course not updating the filters to reflect
> reality as more people have peered at CIX.
>
> > Anyway, I don't know what kind of routes JVNC uses or what kind of routing
> > they're doing, but I'm hoping they take full routes from MCI again shortly.
>
> I don't think they ever have.
>
> -Steve
Anyway, sorry this got propagated out into public by Gordon...
Avi
