Re: Peering Policies and Route Servers
At 12:09 PM 4/29/96 -0700, Ali Marashi wrote:
I did not mean to imply that an organization was "not allowed" to exchange routes with the Route Servers. I was trying to learn why an organization "may choose" or "may not choose" to exchange routes with the Route Servers rather than use direct peering relationships with other organizations.
In other words, what is the value for an organization to utilize the Route Servers? And if there is value, why is everyone not doing it?
One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy. Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss. :-) - paul
In message <199604292016.NAA27332@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
At 12:09 PM 4/29/96 -0700, Ali Marashi wrote:
I did not mean to imply that an organization was "not allowed" to exchange routes with the Route Servers. I was trying to learn why an organization "may choose" or "may not choose" to exchange routes with the Route Servers rather than use direct peering relationships with other organizations.
In other words, what is the value for an organization to utilize the Route Servers? And if there is value, why is everyone not doing it?
One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy. Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss. :-)
- paul
Paul, There is no possibility for blackholing packets. Blackholing means advertising a route and then not delivering the packet. The risk is that a new route or one that changed will not be advertised until the next config cycle. Curtis
Paul Ferguson (pferguso@cisco.com) on April 29:
One detractor, to the best of my knowledge, is that the route servers are not exactly 'dynamic', meaning that they are updated a couple of times during the course of the day to reflect any changes in routing policy. Therefore, the possibility for blackhole'ing packets exists.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm remiss. :-)
Yes, I will do that:-) Route Servers are dynamic, they process upto 6000 routing updates a minute (see http://compute.merit.edu/stats/mae-east/instability). Route Servers are reconfigured with up to date policy 6 times a day, i.e. every four hours. Hence, a brand new route registered in IRR may not be announced by the route servers to the NSPs whose policies are prefix based for up to at most 4 hours. I think this is what you are referring to. Cengiz -- Cengiz Alaettinoglu Information Sciences Institute (310) 822-1511 University of Southern California http://www.isi.edu/~cengiz
participants (3)
-
Cengiz Alaettinoglu -
Curtis Villamizar -
Paul Ferguson