AS200 aggregate components

In message <199506151426.KAA16359 at excelsior.reston.mci.net>, MCI Routing Regist
ry writes:
> 
> curtis,
> 
> actually, we can't withdraw those AS200 components that aren't
> advertised and don't have advisory attributes.  *we* carry the
> more specifics in order to do choose the optimal next-hop on our
> two peering sessions with AS200, but we don't announce them past
> 3561.  if we withdrew the routes, they wouldn't make our ACLs...
> 
> /jws

I knew we'd have to deal with this problem sooner or later.  The
problem is really that there is no support for this case.

Perhpas as an interim measure we could all agree to use a remark with
a specific format such as:

  remark: next hop resolution only

or

  remark: AS3561 next hop resolution only

This would indicate that only a direct peering with AS200, or in the
second case a direct peering between AS200 and AS3561, would require
this route.  I'd like to see it also marked "withdrawn" since it is
announced only between AS200 and AS3561.

Longer term, let's make up a new field.  Perhaps arguments to
"withdrawn", like:

  withdrawn: <who> <date> [ <AS-that-needs-this-for-next-hop>.. ]"

Where the last part is a list of AS numbers.

Curtis

>  * > 
>  * > One of our tools generates:
>  * > 
>  * >   WARNING: 12440 route objects with no AS690 advisory
>  * > 
>  * > A lot of these are AS200 components that are not advertised.  These
>  * > should be marked "withdrawn".  Would you like a list?  If they don't
>  * > get marked withdrawn, we will be getting a lot of worthless filter
>  * > components added to our import statements when we move away from
>  * > advisories.
>  * > 
>  * > Curtis



-------- Logged at  Thu Jun 15 20:37:23 MET DST 1995  ---------