Problems with specific routing policies for each exchange point

I was not questioning the function, only the requirement. It seems
that if the problem exist between NAPNET and GENUITY, it might exist
elsewhere and changing to the specific ASes would be a simple fix.

Are there cases where an AS macro would be really beneficial in the|out) statements?

Well, assuming you use as-macros as they were intended (to simply objects) ..
it shouldn't be a problem. The code is obviously broken and Jake is fixing
it. I assume that we could create another 2 macros listing every AS
individually, but then that'd be more changes that'd we'd have to make every
time we pick-up or drop an AS.

I've removed AS-NAPNET from the AS-GENUITY macro until the problem is


Hi All!

It seems that this situation has brought up a lot of questions about the
use of the rs-in and rs-out lines with AS-MACROS. The goal of allowing
the AS-MACROS in these lines was the same as there use withing the as-in
and as-out lines. It makes things simple and convenient to administer...
improved functionality. Our code originally didn't do the error checking
for the AS-MACRO looping in the rs-in and rs-out lines (although with
RtConfig we caught it in the as-in and as-out lines). We will be making
the correct changes in the next few days.

If anyone has any more questions regarding these issues, please feel free
to contact me (or Jake).


-abha :wink: