[2760] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Tue Apr 30 20:36:40 1996
To: rmg@internex.net (Rob Gutierrez)
cc: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:28:33 PDT."
<199604301728.KAA02799@victory.InterNex.Net>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:33:38 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199604301728.KAA02799@victory.InterNex.Net>, Rob Gutierrez writes:
> >
> > There is no possibility for blackholing packets. Blackholing means
> > advertising a route and then not delivering the packet.
>
> I'm afraid that I did run into a situation where the route was advertised
> and the packet was blackholed.
>
> I started to peer with AS-2882 at the PB NAP, and I accepted routes
> from it for another ISP (no finger pointing today -- sorry). Well, the
> ISP didn't have the VC map config'd in their router, and that route
> became preferred after a glitch somewhere in their network. Well, since
> the med's were the same in the routes we were sending to them, they
> preferred the PB NAP route after their glitch. Needless to say, not
> a happy situation. Then, of course, there was yet another ISP we were
> waiting for their router to be config'd, etc.
This problem is inherent to misconfigured PVC based switched services
and third party routes, not router servers per se. Similar stories
can be heard regarding the CIX SMDS that do not involve a router
server or on frame relay setups.
Curtis
