nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
From: Marten Terpstra <marten () BayNetworks com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 10:48:52 -0400
Jessica Yu <jyy () ans net> writes * This could happen at a non-broadcast media NAP such as ATM nap when the * PVCs between RS-A & RS-B are up but the PVC between A-B is down. But it's * less likely to happen on a broadcast media NAP. * * It'd be ideal that the RS is injected with some intellegence to detect the * fact that A can no long talk to B directly and thus stop passing routes betw * een * A & B. This will avoid the problem. But as you pointed out, it rarely * happens so it may not worth the effort. But the question is whether there will be more NBMA type NAPs in the future. Point to MultiPoint for BGP, I like it ;-) -Marten - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Stephen Wolff (May 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Justin W. Newton (May 01)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Andrew Partan (May 01)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Erik E. Fair (May 01)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Andrew Partan (May 01)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Avi Freedman (May 02)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Jessica Yu (May 02)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Marten Terpstra (May 02)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Curtis Villamizar (May 06)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Erik E. Fair (May 01)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Paul Ferguson (May 02)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Steven J. Richardson (May 02)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers David . Kessens (May 03)
- Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers Paul Ferguson (May 02)