nanog mailing list archives
Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements
From: randy () psg com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 06:19 PST
A normal condition of peering between consenting adults is that the peers have consistent policy across all points where they peer.[example of a quasi-consistent scenario skipped] 1) it's ok with consent of parties involved (i.e. you may want to coordinate fancy policies with peers)
In this particular case, a peer is complaining about a simple policy. Is there an other policy that would make them happy. Can I hope that it is not complex, hardier to maintain, or have undesirable side effects? Is the peer justified in asking me to implement different policy and what other policies?
2) generally speaking, BGP path length is too blunt an instrument. More fine-grained control is needed to allow peers to fine-tune balance of their interests. I'm sorry to be too naive, but i'm repeating that for years and nobody seems to agree that BGP needs real metrics. How come?
I thought that there was some plan to experiment with this, but have seen nothing recently. Perhaps the BGP artists have become otherwise occupied. [ what will changing the length of the ASN do to the community format? ]
3) on a philosophical level, all involved parties should have a way to control destiny of routes, to a some extent. Right now, it's either control local to the destination (local preferences), or control by adjacent neighbour (MEDs). There's no way to extend it further (save for as-replication kludgery) or to combine local and remote metrics in any meaningful way.
I agree that this is worth exploring. But it is a philosophical problem and protocol design issue, thus perhaps better suited to other fora. I am just an unsmooth operator trying to understand how to be a good citizen and how far I may have to bend to be one. The reason I posted to NANOG is that I have a real today problem with an actual unhappy peer. And I am trying to understand if there is something reasonable I can do to make them happy. The inconsistencies described may also cause problems for real world routing analysis tools. So all good points. And I agree with you philosophically. But please bail me out today. randy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- consistent policy != consistent announcements Randy Bush (Mar 12)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements John W. Stewart III (Mar 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Vadim Antonov (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Tony Barber (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Randy Bush (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Tony Li (Mar 16)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Sean Donelan (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Randy Bush (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements John Scudder (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Vince Fuller (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Henry Kilmer (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements David Schwartz (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements the Riz (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Henry Kilmer (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Vince Fuller (Mar 13)
- Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements Henry Kilmer (Mar 13)
(Thread continues...)