Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers

[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