Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering

Jonathan Heiliger loco at MFST.COM
Mon May 13 22:44:57 UTC 1996

On Sun, 12 May 1996, John Curran wrote:

|} At 8:24 PM 5/11/96, Alan Hannan wrote:
|} >  Benefit:  I gain low latency transit to most everyone.
|} >
|} >  Drawback:  It is technically challenging to create an automate
|} >  system to regionalize and create appropriate filter lists.
|} It also complicates every peering relationship and multi-homed 
|} customer connection, as you have to worry about both multiple
|} external AS's and your internal routing redistribution from all 
|} of these regional routing clouds.  

The level of complication is dependant on how the network is structured. 
For example, in a topology which reflects internal routes between
access/service and core nodes, it will be treated as a single AS, or as an
alternate it can be treated as external.  This is because you've
distributed the processing throughout the majority nodes in the network,
rather than a design which is doing the processing on the edges of the

This greatly eases the amount of constant re-configuration and work that
is required to connect to a dense set of exchange points. 


More information about the NANOG mailing list