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@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