[2732] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Tue Apr 30 12:55:12 1996
To: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
cc: Ali Marashi <amarashi@interglobe.com>, bmanning@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:17:48 EDT."
<199604292016.NAA27332@lint.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 12:50:04 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199604292016.NAA27332@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
> At 12:09 PM 4/29/96 -0700, Ali Marashi wrote:
>
> >
> >I did not mean to imply that an organization was "not allowed" to exchange
> >routes with the Route Servers. I was trying to learn why an organization
> >"may choose" or "may not choose" to exchange routes with the Route Servers
> >rather than use direct peering relationships with other organizations.
> >
> >In other words, what is the value for an organization to utilize the Route
> >Servers? And if there is value, why is everyone not doing it?
> >
>
> One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are
> not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times
> during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy.
> Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists.
>
> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss. :-)
>
> - paul
Paul,
There is no possibility for blackholing packets. Blackholing means
advertising a route and then not delivering the packet.
The risk is that a new route or one that changed will not be
advertised until the next config cycle.
Curtis
