To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:49:02 -0400
From: Enke Chen <enke@mci.net>
[...]
Regarding the RS (I have many friends there, and they have done many
good work), let me echo the fundamental issues that Steve Heimlich
has pointed out, would you rather have your peering policy enforced by
yourself or by a third party? Would you rather develop a dependency
on a third party (which may not be there a few years down the road)
to deliver the critical service or depend on yourself?
This sounds like an argument for an NSP to build their own routers.
(Oh,I forgot, that has already been tried...)
More seriously, I would like to think that the analysis performed by
the NSPs is a bit more detailed. Perhaps the challenges include:
o the routing arbiter not having a long-term track record as a vendor
against which to compare internal efforts, or as you mention
an uncertain future;
o the route servers don't save an NSP all that much work;
o the NSPs haven't bothered to do the analysis; or
peerage, like sex these years, has a great potential for the transmission
of disease. so one is very careful about with whom one peers. the route
servers are more like a bath house, you're excahnging bodily fluids with
every and any body.
some exchanges have multi-lats. how many are actually used by the bigger
players and how many are ignored in favor of multiple bi-lats?
peerage, like sex these years, has a great potential for the transmission
of disease. so one is very careful about with whom one peers. the route
servers are more like a bath house, you're excahnging bodily fluids with
every and any body.
Interesting analogy...but not quite accurate. RS-based peering would be
more like...a routing orgy among a group of peers, where a central entity
organizes the bodily routing fluids and directs them, according to
prearranged policy, to the appropriate indirect peers. It breaks down
there...
Your statement implies that, when peering via an RA route server, one is
required to accept (and advertise) any and all routes. This is wholly
untrue. The RS's use policy information from the RADB to do routing
calculations, resulting in a centralized routing model rather than a
distributed one. Yes, it makes policy decisions for you...but based on
your own policy indications.
some exchanges have multi-lats. how many are actually used by the bigger
players and how many are ignored in favor of multiple bi-lats?
I don't know of very many exchanges that have MLPA's, but at the Ameritech
(Chicago) NAP...
