North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)

  • From: Avi Freedman
  • Date: Tue Nov 26 10:04:14 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.         [email protected]

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

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