Re: hole punching reality check

[Bradley Dunn <bradley () dunn org>]

On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Randy Bush wrote:

>   after the move (as it should be):
>      P announces A'/L1 some block containing I's block, A
>      I announces A/L2  (where A is within A' & L2>L1) to P and other(s)
>      P and others announce A/L2 which they hear from I
>      B/24 is contained in A and is a static route to C and known internally
>        to P (note change from I)
>      P should announce B/24
>
>   after then P claims that the following must occur:
>      P will not do the last above, announce B/24
>      I is being told to announce a *mess* of *pieces* of A (to 'get around'
>        B/24) to P and their other upstream(s) because P can not seem to
>        properly announce all of A', A, and B
>      P and others should announce the *many* *pieces* of A/L2 they hear
>        from I
>      P still announces A', which is now the only covering prefix for B/24,
>        thereby turning a /24 into many smallish announcements.  
>
> And, given prefix length filters around the net, guess who eats it, I and
> I's customers who now have many pieces of A as opposed to A.  And this
> gives one a suspicion why P and C don't want B/24 to be announced.  But why
> should I, I's customers, and the rest of the net pay for this?

I should not. I should find a new P if P is going to play this game. P and
C are lucky I is nice enough to give them time to renumber. If P continues
to be belligerent about this, I should immediately assign B/24 to someone
else.

-BD

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