[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.

-------------- 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