|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
Seconded. | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | [email protected] accessU.S., Inc. 888-637-3638 Ext. 222 | | "The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service, | | which failed to start because of the following error: The | | operation completed successfully" -- Windows NT Server v3.51 | On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Robert Laughlin wrote: > I vote for Avi description of the topic. > > Robert > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net > Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, R. Eric Bennett wrote: > > > > At 9:37 AM 11/26/96, Avi Freedman wrote: > > > > > > > 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... > > > > While your outline sounds great wrt its chosen topic, the topic doesn't > > sound like what I consider to be route-reflecting -- specifically, route > > reflection in (i)BGP. Your outline sounds more like "politics and > > operational issues surrounding peering and route-serving at a NAP." Can > > someone clarify which of the two topics is the burning topic that people > > would like presented? > > > > Note that both topics may be burning issues and worthy of a presentation at > > the next NANOG... > > > > thanks, > > eric > > > > ---- > > R. Eric Bennett <[email protected]> | Internet Engineering Group > > 313-669-8800 (v) 313-669-8661 (f) | 122 S. Main, Suite 280 > > http://www.ieng.com/ | Ann Arbor, MI 48104 > > "Radical Rodent: Superdynamic Rodent of Tomorrow" > > -- http://home.earthlink.net/~krhughes/Rat.html > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|