Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: NANOG 9 Date Change (fwd)
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. 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...
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 <reb@ieng.com> | 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
Oops, didn't mean to send it to the whole list - I didn't notice nang@ in the cc: headers on the original message.
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
I guess there were two groups of people wandering around muttering about route reflection, then, because many were muttering about peering issues and how long it takes to get peering even with people who generally are open to it, just because of the send-everyone-email process. Avi
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. 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...
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 <reb@ieng.com> | 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
Seconded. | Derek Elder http://www.accessus.net V.P., CIO | | djelder@accessus.net 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. 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...
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 <reb@ieng.com> | 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
participants (4)
-
Avi Freedman -
Derek Elder -
reb＠ieng.com -
Robert Laughlin