Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements

[David Schwartz <djls () gate net>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Vince Fuller wrote:

> What we are seeing, though, is "R A M" at Point1 and nothing at Point2, likely
> because Randy doesn't consider "R B M", received from one of his peers, to be
> a customer route.

        Ahh, now that's another story. That is something it is reasonable
for a peer to object to. If you are going to advertise a route to a block
at one peering point, you should be advertising a route to that block at 
all peering points and with the same AS length.

        It is not consistent policy to route to a customer through both
another customer and a non-customer. That's what you can't do. 
Alternatively, if you do decide you must accept routes to a customer from
a non-customer, you must consider those routes to be customer routes. 

        Agree? Disagree?

        DS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -