Peering Policies and Route Servers

Steve Heimlich heimlich at
Tue Apr 30 01:36:06 UTC 1996


>>In other words, what is the value for an organization to utilize the Route
>>Servers?  And if there is value, why is everyone not doing it?
>One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are
>not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times
>during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy.
>Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists.
>I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss.  :-)

It's possible to have a policy at the RA Route Server which is
equivalent to a policy on a router and which does not need to change
all that often (e.g., AS-path-based export policy).  Of course,
when it does need to change, it's the RA which needs to execute
that change, which leads into what I think is the real issue:


Would you bet your business on a service run by someone other than
yourself?  While the Route Server is interesting and useful technology
(and I'm assuming that we all understand why that may or may not
be so), and may become necessary at some point for those providers
without resources to deploy appropriate routers, I don't think most
organizations would outsource a critical piece of functionality
without business assurances that the vending party is accountable
for the quality of service it provides.

I do not wish to make any point about the current RA folks, but
rather highlight that it's just a basic business issue.  Emotionally,
I certainly want to control my own destiny to the maximum extent
possible.  From a business perspective, I believe it's essential.


More information about the NANOG mailing list