On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:45:36AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 08:40:46AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > If you have the resourcing to deploy proper automation, including > > dynamic filtering and session management, then bilateral is better. > > To emphasize some aspect of this for the non-operators on this list: > the technical bits of this are manageable. Talking to 500 other ISPs > that are not responding to e-mail, do not have anyone in the same time > zone, generally lack understanding of BGP, etc. - this is what really > costs, and where a well-maintained route server really shines. > > (And then, there's "poor BGP implementations that just do not scale > properly with 600+ peers on the same router"... like, "most of them") > > If there were only 10 other ISPs at the IXPs we connect to, we could > do without route servers :-)
Yes, route servers can be very useful, no question about it. I think their value as a service would increase if they become visible participants of the routing ecosystem. Gert, do you think it would affect your operations if the route server would insert its ASN into the AS_PATH? Would you be willing to run a test? In your routing policy you can append "6695" on inbound and prepend your own AS on outbound to simulate what it would be like if that RS would insert itself. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
