Re: consistent policy != consistent announcements

[Vince Fuller]

    > My first concern is the loss of information when the route to M isn't
    > announced.  This causes unfairness when traffic ends up taking the 'long'
    > route.
    
    My peer fears that and would like me to fix it.  I don't understand how I
    can do that in a simple maintainable fashion.
    
    > More than likely your peer is doing the same thing unto you.
    
    Quite possibly, but they won't 'fess up to it.  And I don't want to whine
    at them unless I know how to constructively address the opportunity (the
    peer is a Californian:-).

A correction: the peer individual is definitely not a native Californian,
though he does reside there.

As best I can tell, we present consistant routes to all of our peers. How do
I know this? Because I set up test routers to peer with our public interconnect
points and run periodically run my consistancy checker against them.

    If my peer does not agree that my policy is reasonable and a consequence of
    current tools, their reaction may be to reject inconsistent announcements
    thereby increasing the likelihood that no path is propagated.