[External] Re: uPRF strict more
Mark Tinka
mark at tinka.africa
Fri Oct 1 21:09:37 UTC 2021
On 10/1/21 20:17, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Do people in other parts of the world have access (both physical and
> logical) to enough bilateral peering (and budgets...) that it makes
> sense to deploy a router per peer?
Certainly not a router per peer, but a peering router per city, where it
may connect to one or more exchange points. This is what we do.
Granted, it does increase your budgeting complexity, but in our case,
over time, the delineation has actually simplified operations that the
architecture has paid itself back many times over.
In the real world, this is not always possible, and I understand that a
peering router for some networks may also be providing transit as well
as edge functions. This is quite normal, even though it can create other
complexities depending on whom the eBGP session is with - which then
lends itself to running parts or all of the Internet in VRF's and all
that hocus pocus. When we tried this sort of thing at a previous job
some 14 years ago, it was just simpler to have separate routers each
handling transit, peering and customer edge.
Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211001/6695d46b/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list