I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service.

Plenty of eyeball networks will announce prefixes differently via a bilateral session vs a route server session vs DFZ, then come yelling because traffic isn't going the way they expected it to. There can be times that the administrative overhead of dealing with those folks far outweighs any financial or performance benefits.

Route servers are generally useful, but can be a royal pain in the ass too, depending on how they're used.

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:35 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 11/7/24 21:42, Randy Bush wrote:
i used to resist.  my instinct is that the data plane and the control
plane should be congruent or you can have hard to debug issues[0].
but, as i have gotten older and lazier, and as you say, route servers
have gotten quite reliable, i have come over to the route server side.
I don't think there is any satisfactory argument that can be made for wanting to avoid route server routing. For the content/cloud folk, I think avoiding it provides a mechanism via which they can screen for the utility of having to keep an exchange point node upgraded and optimized for service.

Mark.