The organizations that export/import routes via the route servers may find: 1) the routers have fewer configured peers therefore resulting in less load on the routers 2) the route servers have route flap dampening implemented thereby insulating the peer from a high number of routing updates 3) the route servers do the routing computations which results in freeing significant amounts of processing time on the peer routers 4) a reduction in the time and energy (people resources) needed to establish new peering relationships --Elise
Ali Marashi writes:
I had a few questions to direct to the group at large that I believe are of a "network operational" nature.
(1) I have heard that Sprint and MCI currently require an organization to peer with them at a minimum of three exchange points, where one must be on a different coast. I have been unable to confirm this directly from the sources yet. Would anyone care to share what knowledge they have on the subject? Are any other large providers (e.g., ANS) adhering to similar policies? As Internet traffic increases across the large backbones, could this be a trend that continues with other providers?
(2) Could anyone share opinions/facts regarding why organizations may or may not exchange routes via the Route Servers rather than direct peering relationships at the NAPs?
Thank you for any information/enlightenment. Ali....
+----------------------------------------+ | Ali Marashi | | interGlobe Networks, Inc. | | phone: 206.623.2222 fax: 206.623.0885 | | http://www.interglobe.com | +----------------------------------------+