ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
Avi Freedman
freedman at netaxs.com
Tue Nov 26 14:37:21 UTC 1996
> Route reflecting sounds like a good topic - could I interest any of you
> in presenting on it?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh at merit.edu
I would be willing to present, though as I said I think a separate meeting
to see what people really want is needed.
I think the issues are:
o (Briefly) The politics and technology of peering
o Easier peering between multiple parties: MLPA
o Since no NAP operator is going to enforce an MLPA, how can peering between
multiple willing parties still be made to happen with less people time
involved in the setup?
o Why might the RA not be the best tool - or why might it be?
o Possible goal:
o Participants sign a contract expressing a desire to peer with anyone
else signing the contract (not exclusively) through a route-reflecting
box.
o You can only offer routes for you and "your customers" via this. No
partial transit to specific people can be offered.
o Boxes at each interesting exchange point that people can then peer with
to effect the agreement. One or two Cisco 2501s would work fine, but
RA-type boxes which can "hide" their ASs in the middle might be
interesting as well (Peter Lothberg arguments about BGP not being
designed to 'work that way' possibly put aside).
o Filtering:
o Box-side filtering to enforce sanity?
o Concerns
o Who's going to run the thing?
o Network stability?
o What happens to control bad neighbors?
Or, perhaps a separate mailing list is needed in the interim to allow
people to discuss the issue without boring uninterested members of
the nanog list...
Avi
More information about the NANOG
mailing list