Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements

[David Schwartz <djls () gate net>]

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997, Alan Barrett wrote:

> The topology we are discussing:
>
>                     M
>                   /   \
>                  A     B      * Peer link
>                  |     *      | Customer link
>                  RRRRRRR
>           Point1 *     * Point2
>                  VVVVVVV
>
> M might very well have requested R to consider the paths "R A M" and "R
> B M" to be equally good, and M doesn't care that A is a customer of R
> but B is not a customer of R.  It's perfectly reasonable for R to accede
> to M's wishes in this regard.

        M and A have no direct relationship in this picture so I don't 
see why M would be making requests to R. R should normally be preferring 
customer links to peer links.

        I think it's reasonable of V to demand that if R wishes to treat 
M in such an unusual way, R consider all of M's routes customer routes. 
Otherwise R cannot present a consistent picture to V because R's policy 
is not consistent (preferring a customer route on one side and a peer 
route on the other).

        DS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -