The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane Electric - and how to solve it

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Jan 25 19:55:04 UTC 2016



On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote:

>
>
> Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why
> one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking
> folk.

It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various
industry initiatives this way.

But for a commercial service, the decoupling between the state of the
physical link and the control plane in this case creates an opportunity
for various forwarding issues that are avoidable. The BFD argument could
be made, but it is not yet a basic feature one can expect with one's
customers.


>
>  
>
> They sell those routers at your nearest staples, they require zero
> commands.

No Staples this side of the world...


>
>
> I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how
> centralized your network is built or not?

Not everyone has the luxury of carrying a full table at the edge, for
various reasons, and I get that (even though in 2016, selective BGP FIB
downloads is a reality).

But if you can avoid it, determining one or two boxes in your core that
are your full BGP table reference puts a great deal of burden on those
devices to run and maintain routability for and within your network. If
I had the ability not to do this, I would, despite how sexy eBGP
Multi-Hop might be.

Mark.




More information about the NANOG mailing list