nanog mailing list archives
Re: valley free routing?
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:23:42 -0800
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
Hi folks, Can anyone tell me about a situation in which a route which was not valley free was not a result of a misconfiguration or a bad actor? For those who don't recall the terminology, a network path is valley free if it crosses exactly zero or one free peering links when traveling between the two endpoints.
Isn't that the way most of the IPv6 internet ran for many years? ISP A -> 6939 <- ISP B, settlement-free connections all around? It's what established 6939 as the core of the IPv6 internet. Matt
Thanks, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: valley free routing?, (continued)
- Re: valley free routing? Blake Dunlap (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? JÁKÓ András (Mar 06)
- Re: valley free routing? Joel Maslak (Mar 05)
- Re: valley free routing? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 06)
- Re: valley free routing? Randy Bush (Mar 06)
- RE: valley free routing? Siegel, David (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? Randy Bush (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 07)
- RE: valley free routing? Siegel, David (Mar 07)
- Re: valley free routing? William Herrin (Mar 06)